Consent of the Governed

[Keith_Indy]

Some of you may have noted my signature. An important reminder of the founding of this country.

These essays explain various viewpoints on "Consent of the Governed" pretty well. As citizens of cities, states and nations we agree to a certain amount of governance going on.

Declaration of Independence and “consent of the governed” | Montana Shooting Sports Association

This concept, that government only exists with the consent of the governed, may be the most revolutionary philosophical concept in recorded human history. The philosophical concept underpinning all other existing governments at the time of America’s founding was some form of divine right of kings. Kings ruled, and people were little more than property of the king.

Indeed, up until the Declaration of Independence, the standard form of governance in the World (with a few minor exceptions in history) was tyranny some form of an elite person, group or class holding all power.

The concept of consent of the governed was so important that it is the very first statement in the Montana Constitution, which says at Article II, Section 1, All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Under this concept where all political power is inherent in the individual, when we engender and empower our government(s), we do that in a written contract that we call a constitution. Actually, this document is more like a power of attorney than a contract.

By that contract, we delegate a limited amount of our individual political power to government to do for us in common things we cannot do well individually, such as provide for the common defense of the nation. However, we are also wise enough to include in that contract strict limitations on government power, limitations on the existing power we have as individuals that we do NOT delegate to government.

Consent of the Governed? | Robert Higgs

It appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.

mises.org

Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon's admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as "our own bodies."

So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.

Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation.

Anarchist Socialism by J.Wm. Lloyd

Anarchist Socialism By J.Wm [John William] Lloyd As many of you, my comrades, may know me only as a Socialist, and may doubt my qualifications to explain Anarchism, I will say that for some 20 year…

www.unionofegoists.com

First, then, what is Anarchism? It is logical human liberty. It is the ideal of human life without a master. Tucker defined it as “Equal Liberty”. Another definition is, “Do as you please at your own expense”; another, “Mind your own business and let your neighbor’s alone”. The name was first used and applied by Pierre J. Proudhon, the French philosopher, who derived it from the Greek an, privitive, and archos, ruler, meaning life without a ruler or government. On this basis the Anarchist founds a whole system of ethics and politics. He identifies crime and government as the same in logical essence, for both are impositions of one man’s will on another without his consent. All Anarchists say that liberty and Anarchism are synonyms.

What is Anarchism?

Anarchism is a broad tradition of historical ideas that contain common elements that are nevertheless, sometimes, conflicting. There is no set of positions that you must hold in order to count as a real anarchist. Rather, in my view, anarchism involves three main points of conceptual analysis...

c4ss.org

In not taking the state as a given for human organization and progress, anarchism must question what undergirds the state. While political theorists have long hypothesized about ways that states supposedly rely on the “consent of the governed,” the logic behind “governance” implies the conceptual impossibility of genuine consent. The state, in denying alternatives to its decrees and the ability for its subjects to opt out, rules out the possibility of genuine consent on behalf of anyone who “accepts” the terms of the state. Since the background condition of the choice to consent or not consent is one of duress imposed by the state, any choice to consent to the state can’t be reasonably treated as genuine since that would require the ability to refuse

 

[The Bubba Effect]

The consent of the governed is the basis of our legitimacy.

This always comes to mind when the antis talk about gun bans. I always think
"It is all fine and good to pass a rule or law and think you are going to shove it down our throats, but what if we withdraw our consent? What if we decide the rule/law breaks the deal that we are willing to live with? What happens then? Are they willing to do the thing?

 

[manifest destiny]

If consenting is the lack of active rebellious efforts by the masses to affront definable tyranny by the elite, then we have consented. We've become creature comforted. As to the Mises article, I couldn't believe the excerpt you provided. It didn't read like anything I'd expect from the Institute. So I clicked the link. I found out the author Dr. Higgs lives in Mexico. He claims ancestral heritage, proudly as an Oklahoman, decries his personal affront to forced consent... but lives in Mexico. I'm not picking on the source. I've read plenty of articles posted on MI. The link to Union of Egoist is new to me. I bookmarked it for reading.

 

[BigRed]

I read on INGO that once consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I read on INGO that once consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn.

That's just silly talk.

You can not believe 9/10 of the folks on here. Too many lawyers.

 

[Tombs]

If this government operates by consent of the governed, then we should rename rape to consensual sex.