If I understood your post, you believe the majority are entitled to use force or fraud for their own benefit at the expense of the minority because it provides for a more efficient society.
I never wrote they are entitled to it. I think in our discussion we will uncover is that in the U.S. you still have a choice to lease your power to people, as long as you retain the choice to retract it, help shape what it's used for, and gain some other power of your own choosing, in return.
In fact, that is the hallmark of efficiency and prosperity and freedom. I did NOT earn the land I live on distinct from the market in which I purchased it. You must accept that basic fact.
Furthermore you believe that my ideals with regard to individual Liberty derive from the fact that I live in a society in which the majority uses the initiation of force to steal from or place limitations on the minority, and thus have no experience with a society in which force or fraud is only used to combat another initiation of force or fraud.
I haven't commented on how the power is derived from your vantage point except to note popular sovereignty. And to me it's not necessary that popular sovereignty excludes choice.
Popular sovereignty is exactly that. The popular of sovereignty over the unpopular.
10 men live in an island. they divide the land up equally. 1 wants individual sovereignty. the other 9 band together and divide up labor willingly through negotiation based on desire/skill, etc. They come up with barter/money rules, and work out ways to use each others land for their own wants/needs. You trade with them, but they always have the advantage of a more efficient system.
Now, where in there did they force something on you?
Now someone women come ashore, 10, fancy that. And a son is born to the 9, and a son is born to the One. Now, the One rules over his son by who's authority? Apparently not in line with your idealism. But continuing, the 9's son is raised with the expectation that he will contribute, as they have, to their mutually beneficial way of life. After all, he reached maturity safely not through his own will, but via a shared will and effort that he is NOT privy to take with force. Once of age enough that they decide youth can fend for themselves, they offer him a choice. Their way, or he can live like the one (you), on a nearby island. The son has a choice. There is no fraud, or force. If he stays, only if he's a complete moron will he claim that he owns his house free and clear of any of their attempts to enforce building codes. HE is the one using force. YOU are the one attempting to justify your use of force.
As an example, if I own a piece of land and want to put a car that my neighbors find unsightly on it, my neighbors can get together and initiate the use of force to prevent me from putting my own car on my own land.
Your land came with restrictions that you already agreed to, and now you want to deny it so you can have your cake and eat it too. You ignore the underlying premise, you want to use force on those before you who already through sweat and blood obtained that land, and you commit fraud because I know we can find the papers and the legally binding agreements you made.
According to the video, they should have no right to initiate such force against me.
Incorrect, the video is an abstract ideal, it doesn't know you already agreed to neighborhood or state or city ordinances. In fact, if you did, and break them, YOU committed fraud.
If I choose to engage in homosexual sex with another consenting adult, no one should have the right to initiate force in order to prevent me from doing so simply because it isn't "popular."
You gave them the right by living there, voluntarily.
You were not privy to the negotiations that went on to secure the land in which you are sodomizing someone on, you don't own it individually, so you have, by your definition, no such rights. You miss the premises, again, and go about happily claiming your "Fraud" is justified via a philosophy that claims it's not.
It is unjust to form and petition a government to initiate force or fraud on your behalf. That is all there is to it.
So, when you band together to defend your land, by hiring a militia, it's unjust? You can't mean that.
-Mach