Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, July 11, 2011

Consent Of The Governed?

What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things:  “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.

One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.

I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.

Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.

More

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Though I AGREE with sir poster, of this article... You can also agree that NO ONE will ever stand up and fight the govt the way the revolutionaries did... Our govt has more money and tech to take us all out... The only way I see change is to do an arms revolt because as time and time again shows, peoples words mean nothing... you can vote this or that but it still won't change... you can never get corruption out... Once a good person gets into office, it is only a matter of time before he is corrupt or has corrupt actions to get others to tag along... Besides as long as people are allowing their selves to be treated in such manners and are allowing themselves to be terrorized then we will further lose our ability to have say...

If you read quotes from terrorists and Hitler and others, they specifically say that if your people don't or won't listen or to take liberty away you have to make them feel like their life is in jeopardy and they will be willing to let go of liberty...

Anonymous said...

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
- Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- U.S. President James Madison

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
- Adolph Hitler