There are a great many of these, but they shouldn't be required.
A government that encourages it's subjects to undermine it by imposing controls it's unwilling or unable to enforce causes the same sort of issues as a game (
cough Elite: Dangerous
cough) that tacitly allows bugs to be exploited. It legitimizes corruption and further exacerbates inequalities by allowing some groups to play by a better set of rules and protections than others.
They don't need your agreement, they have your compliance already.
Only if your standard of compliance is a tautology and the only things that can be done are what are allowed to be done. This is not the case in reality.
They don't even need to take your opinions into account since you say you've never voted or registered to vote
.
The idea that voting in a polarized two-party system that doesn't even present any meaningful choices could be more relevant than the myriad of other socioeconomic interactions that goes on, even at my modest socioeconomic level, is comical. Most influence isn't in the form of votes, and even in a functional democracy, which I have never seen, this would remain the case.
This is the naivety I was talking about...your constant assertion that world works as it ideally should. The idea that, even if the voting map wasn't polarized and or gerrymandered beyond recognition, that I've been presented with a meaningful choice. The idea that the forces of law and order didn't create the majority of the problems that are used to justify their pervasiveness (your mention of cartels--whose consumer base was largely created, and whose profit margins were greatly inflated, by The War on Drugs--is a prime example). The idea that international travel as a tourist (inherently limited to people with significant means) would somehow be more enlightening than domestic nomadism and actually living among different peoples. Your optimism around BLM and related protests having achieved meaningful progress when it's already clear that the status quo is overwhelmingly intact. Etc and so forth.
Not saying my own perspectives are the only, or always the least biased, ones possible, but the more we argue this topic, the less grounded in reality I think you are. Part of the fault has to be mine though, cause I'm clearly miscommunicating something given some of your responses (which have addressed points I never made, things I never implied, or conclusions I never came to).
A difficult one when it is fundamentally a political philosophic standpoint that will form your opinion right or wrong.
Even aside any moral or ethical considerations, it's impossible to separate politics from a discussion that talks about mandatory compliance with anything.
I'm frequently at a loss as to where the actual line is, because there is no aspect of real life that is untouched by political concerns.
>
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
