Paging poster X, poster X to this thread. You're going to want to read this. (Warning: Government & Politics Stuff)

[Turtleneck]

Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed – and why it matters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/

But the lack of consent does undercut arguments that we have a duty to obey the government because we have somehow agreed to it or because it represents the “will of the people.” When the government makes unjust laws, it cannot so readily claim we have an automatic duty to obey them, regardless of their content.

[Robert J Sakimano]

he hasn't specifically assigned me to be his spokesperson.. but.. "freedom"..

[Turtleneck]

There is quite a bit of truth in that post. Hard to disagree.

[xsanguine]

I like the quote I see and I'll have to read the entire article a bit later after work. Thanks for posting and I'm sure I'll have some thoughts after I get a chance to read through it.

I will say I've given some thought to the idea of property and I can't say I disagree. I know I haven't conveyed that properly because with me there's always a "but"... And I think that just stems from my relative tunnel vision with regards to obvious and direct application of force. It's one of those things that would make itself apparent once the official apparatus begins to be dismantled but always seemed like a tier 2 concern. It seems like a harder sell to throw everything at people so engrained in statism from get go. Now I'm not saying I'm going to go out tomorrow and start throwing that into my argument because I still believe the greater evil is state sanctioned violence...... And the logical follow up is that private property rights naturally to begin to fall apart once there is no way to uphold those "rights" through government.

Sort of off topic but I felt it was important to clarify and seemed as good a time as any to do so rather than randomly in Travis' "Show Your Butthole" thread or something.

[xsanguine]

I feel like Malcolm X when called out on this board, heh.

[Robert J Sakimano]

I like the quote I see and I'll have to read the entire article a bit later after work. Thanks for posting and I'm sure I'll have some thoughts after I get a chance to read through it.

I will say I've given some thought to the idea of property and I can't say I disagree. I know I haven't conveyed that properly because with me there's always a "but"... And I think that just stems from my relative tunnel vision with regards to obvious and direct application of force. It's one of those things that would make itself apparent once the official apparatus begins to be dismantled but always seemed like a tier 2 concern. It seems like a harder sell to throw everything at people so engrained in statism from get go. Now I'm not saying I'm going to go out tomorrow and start throwing that into my argument because I still believe the greater evil is state sanctioned violence...... And the logical follow up is that private property rights naturally to begin to fall apart once there is no way to uphold those "rights" through government.

Sort of off topic but I felt it was important to clarify and seemed as good a time as any to do so rather than randomly in Travis' "Show Your Butthole" thread or something.

you could've just typed "freedom" and saved yourself a lot of work..

[xsanguine]

I like the quote I see and I'll have to read the entire article a bit later after work. Thanks for posting and I'm sure I'll have some thoughts after I get a chance to read through it.

I will say I've given some thought to the idea of property and I can't say I disagree. I know I haven't conveyed that properly because with me there's always a "but"... And I think that just stems from my relative tunnel vision with regards to obvious and direct application of force. It's one of those things that would make itself apparent once the official apparatus begins to be dismantled but always seemed like a tier 2 concern. It seems like a harder sell to throw everything at people so engrained in statism from get go. Now I'm not saying I'm going to go out tomorrow and start throwing that into my argument because I still believe the greater evil is state sanctioned violence...... And the logical follow up is that private property rights naturally to begin to fall apart once there is no way to uphold those "rights" through government.

Sort of off topic but I felt it was important to clarify and seemed as good a time as any to do so rather than randomly in Travis' "Show Your Butthole" thread or something.

you could've just typed "freedom" and saved yourself a lot of work..

We're either free or we aren't, Bob.

[Robert J Sakimano]

you could've just typed "freedom" and saved yourself a lot of work..

We're either free or we aren't, Bob.

and freedom ain't free..

like, if you wanna supersize your value meal on your way to the Trump rally, you're free to do so.. but that's a freedom you have to pay for.

[xsanguine]

We're either free or we aren't, Bob.

and freedom ain't free..

like, if you wanna supersize your value meal on your way to the Trump rally, you're free to do so.. but that's a freedom you have to pay for.

Well that would definitely make sense on why you harbor the political beliefs you have, Bob. I'm not quite sure you have a strong grasp on liberty. It's okay, though, I'll still bring the weed for both of us to smoke at tailgate.

[Robert J Sakimano]

and freedom ain't free..

like, if you wanna supersize your value meal on your way to the Trump rally, you're free to do so.. but that's a freedom you have to pay for.

Well that would definitely make sense on why you harbor the political beliefs you have, Bob. I'm not quite sure you have a strong grasp on liberty. It's okay, though, I'll still bring the weed for both of us to smoke at tailgate.

I don't do illegal drugs..

[xsanguine]

Well that would definitely make sense on why you harbor the political beliefs you have, Bob. I'm not quite sure you have a strong grasp on liberty. It's okay, though, I'll still bring the weed for both of us to smoke at tailgate.

I don't do illegal drugs..

That's a shame, Bob. You're lucky you don't hang out with me or else I may drop some psilocybin extract in one of your PBRs to... Expand your mind a little.

It's only because I care, though. I want all of my e-friends to expand their minds and premonitions. And if I have to do so by...... Force.... Then so be it. =D

[Robert J Sakimano]

I don't do illegal drugs..

That's a shame, Bob. You're lucky you don't hang out with me or else I may drop some psilocybin extract in one of your PBRs to... Expand your mind a little.

It's only because I care, though. I want all of my e-friends to expand their minds and premonitions. And if I have to do so by...... Force.... Then so be it. =D

that sounds like the opposite of this "freedom" you're so fond of.

[Turtleneck]

So....WTF are you doing, X? I'm waiting. We are all waiting.

[Rocinante]

Freedom costs $1.05.

[DWags]

Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed – and why it matters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/

But the lack of consent does undercut arguments that we have a duty to obey the government because we have somehow agreed to it or because it represents the “will of the people.” When the government makes unjust laws, it cannot so readily claim we have an automatic duty to obey them, regardless of their content.

Meh, Rousseau answered that in 1762 in his @social contract"


" individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "

[Other Teams Pursuing That]

So....WTF are you doing, X? I'm waiting. We are all waiting.

I think he's doing X.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

So....WTF are you doing, X? I'm waiting. We are all waiting.

I think he's doing X.

I saw him posting on rcmb otpt. You should get him.

[Turtleneck]

Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed – and why it matters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/

Meh, Rousseau answered that in 1762 in his @social contract"


" individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "

Keep in mind that Rousseau's thoughts also inspired Robespierre and the Reign of Terror.

Hobbes and Locke examined the question - the exchange of rights for protection - prior to Rousseau. Hobbes concluded there was a need for absolute authority. Unlike Hobbes, Locke concluded only a very limited authority was necessary and individual freedom was paramount. Locke's thoughts are embedded in our founding. However, all of this is problematic. First, your response does not challenge the question so much as it reinforces the question. What you describe is imposed by the state. It is not a consensual arrangement, and it cannot be a consensual arrangement given the imbalance in power between the state and the individual. As pointed out in the article, even if the government fails to protect you, you still have to pay your taxes. Which brings us to a new question. Is consent possible?

[The_Dude]

Just vote for Trump.

[DWags]

Meh, Rousseau answered that in 1762 in his @social contract"


" individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "

Keep in mind that Rousseau's thoughts also inspired Robespierre and the Reign of Terror.

Hobbes and Locke examined the question - the exchange of rights for protection - prior to Rousseau. Hobbes concluded there was a need for absolute authority. Unlike Hobbes, Locke concluded only a very limited authority was necessary and individual freedom was paramount. Locke's thoughts are embedded in our founding. However, all of this is problematic. First, your response does not challenge the question so much as it reinforces the question. What you describe is imposed by the state. It is not a consensual arrangement, and it cannot be a consensual arrangement given the imbalance in power between the state and the individual. As pointed out in the article, even if the government fails to protect you, you still have to pay your taxes. Which brings us to a new question. Is consent possible?

but you me everyone who hasn't picked up a gun isolated ourselves and did everything we wanted to do in the exact way and time we've wanted to do it have consented. If the government somehow hasn't protected me and I haven't revolted but I still paid my taxes, how haven't I consented to them?

[Other Teams Pursuing That]

Just vote for Trump.

Sincerely,

Trump's Campaign

[Turtleneck]

I'm not sure I fully understand your post. But again, is consent possible given the imbalance of power between citizen and state? Is it not coercion rather than consent? If government fails you but you still pay your taxes, it is more evidence that government exists on the basis of coercion rather than consent. From the link:

Suppose you call the police to alert them that an intruder is in your house, but the police never bother dispatch someone to help you, and as a result the intruder shoots you. The government still requires you to pay taxes for the protection services it chose not to deploy on your behalf.

[Other Teams Pursuing That]

I think he's doing X.

I saw him posting on rcmb otpt. You should get him.

Un-be-lievable, to think I kinda liked the guy. Well, hate his fucking guts now!

[xsanguine]

So....WTF are you doing, X? I'm waiting. We are all waiting.

I agree with most of what he said.

I think he contradicts himself with "foot-voting"... and I noticed someone else in the comments indicated the same double speak I feel I caught. Either it's easy or it's hard, it's not both.

Existing on a piece of rock that has been there since prior to human beings were anywhere is an interesting argument I've heard from statists as some sort of de facto consent. As the author states... government controls (and I won't give you the famous phrase I use but it uses a word that rhymes with highlance) all of the habitable land. There isn't any way, let alone a reasonable one, that you can escape majoritarian control. So because you're incapable of escaping it statists use that as you giving your consent to be ruled by whatever the loudest minority group wants to inflict upon you.

One thing I disagree with... and I think the author included this as some sort of weak attempt at an olive branch... but the last paragraph;

A government that rules without consent isn’t necessarily a bad government. In the terminology of the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for our most powerful political office, it might even turn out to be super-classy and hugely terrific. But it should be viewed with greater suspicion and kept on a tighter leash than a government that genuinely derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."

Give me an example of this. He gives plenty of examples to support his other arguments... give me an example of how rule through threat of violence is not a bad thing.

Overall, however, I think it articulated my feelings pretty well. I've noticed a growing number of individuals the past 3 or 4 years expressing this kind of opinion and to see it in the Washington Post by a law professor from George Mason is refreshing. Hopefully that trajectory continues in a positive direction.

What do you think, TN? And how do you feel? I know we've articulated each other's positions briefly through PM but what say you?

[xsanguine]

I think he's doing X.

I saw him posting on rcmb otpt. You should get him.

Yeah I had to argue with Cincy about the drug war, specifically with regards to heroin. That guy is a religious fucking whacko... Bob would love him.

[xsanguine]

That's a shame, Bob. You're lucky you don't hang out with me or else I may drop some psilocybin extract in one of your PBRs to... Expand your mind a little.

It's only because I care, though. I want all of my e-friends to expand their minds and premonitions. And if I have to do so by...... Force.... Then so be it. =D

that sounds like the opposite of this "freedom" you're so fond of.

"Now you're beginning to see the nature of the cage you are in...."

[xsanguine]

So....WTF are you doing, X? I'm waiting. We are all waiting.

I think he's doing X.

You ever checked out DarkNet markets, OTPT? Holy fucking shit! It's like Amazon for the black market but with better customer service. WAY better customer service. I always knew about DarkNet markets and understood how they worked in a very general way but wow... it'd be like buying a bike from Trek online and before making your purchase you're talking to the guy making the bike about the #3 hex bolt fitting into the carbon tower frame and if it's better to use a #3 barrel bolt instead.... but with 2C-H D-Lysergic acid or Peruvian Flake coca. You old timers yearning for your Grateful Dead days should get on that.

What crazy fucking times we're living in.

[xsanguine]

Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed – and why it matters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/

Meh, Rousseau answered that in 1762 in his @social contract"


" individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "

How the heck does that even approach "consensual"?

Can I just grab a woman off the street in a dangerous hood and tell her the sex is now consensual because I'm taking her to a safer neighborhood and therefore protecting her?

Maybe the feminists are right....#RapeCulture

Edit: I read TN's response... sorry, dawgs, I don't have the historical contexts that TN does. I work mainly with analogies.

[xsanguine]

Keep in mind that Rousseau's thoughts also inspired Robespierre and the Reign of Terror.

Hobbes and Locke examined the question - the exchange of rights for protection - prior to Rousseau. Hobbes concluded there was a need for absolute authority. Unlike Hobbes, Locke concluded only a very limited authority was necessary and individual freedom was paramount. Locke's thoughts are embedded in our founding. However, all of this is problematic. First, your response does not challenge the question so much as it reinforces the question. What you describe is imposed by the state. It is not a consensual arrangement, and it cannot be a consensual arrangement given the imbalance in power between the state and the individual. As pointed out in the article, even if the government fails to protect you, you still have to pay your taxes. Which brings us to a new question. Is consent possible?

but you me everyone who hasn't picked up a gun isolated ourselves and did everything we wanted to do in the exact way and time we've wanted to do it have consented. If the government somehow hasn't protected me and I haven't revolted but I still paid my taxes, how haven't I consented to them?

Because you'd rather be the chicken out in the tax-farm fields than being confined to an 8x10 cell.

[DWags]

but you me everyone who hasn't picked up a gun isolated ourselves and did everything we wanted to do in the exact way and time we've wanted to do it have consented. If the government somehow hasn't protected me and I haven't revolted but I still paid my taxes, how haven't I consented to them?

Because you'd rather be the chicken out in the tax-farm fields than being confined to an 8x10 cell.

In other words, like Rouseau said, "We give up some rights, so that others might be protected". -1762.

Are we giving up right to property to insure our right to life and liberty?

[xsanguine]

Because you'd rather be the chicken out in the tax-farm fields than being confined to an 8x10 cell.

In other words, like Rouseau said, "We give up some rights, so that others might be protected". -1762.

Are we giving up right to property to insure our right to life and liberty?

No, I'm not. Meaning it's not consensual. Meaning there is no consent. There is no choice, therefore no consent.

[DWags]

I'm not sure I fully understand your post. But again, is consent possible given the imbalance of power between citizen and state? Is it not coercion rather than consent? If government fails you but you still pay your taxes, it is more evidence that government exists on the basis of coercion rather than consent. From the link:

Suppose you call the police to alert them that an intruder is in your house, but the police never bother dispatch someone to help you, and as a result the intruder shoots you. The government still requires you to pay taxes for the protection services it chose not to deploy on your behalf.

That's a government failure and I believe there would be consequences to it. Government set up by the rules we've consented - (I'm in trouble, I need help, I call 911 and they will come and help me) and in turn I have paid for that with my property, giving up part of a natural right (Life liberty property). It was set up to work, but we have individuals who have let that part of the consensual system down. Will there be accountabilty for this misuse of our trust? Will someone pay for their incompetence with jail time or life or property? The system of consent/protection is set up to work, that it sometimes doesn't has to be either the fault of the state or the individual entrusted to carry out that part of the social contract. Who do you put the fault on in that situation?

As for the first part of your question; "isn't it coercion rather than consent", I think we have had those examples in history. Taxation without representation, however, was met with a revolution. That is the second part of my point.

if I don't pick up arms and fight against the government, then aren't I indeed consenting to it. Because I disagree vehemently, If I cower to my home and do nothing, aren't I indeed consenting to their tyranny? Fuck, when we liberated the concentration camps and made the German citizens march by the corpses of the jews and they all said "they were forced to go along" fuck that, no they weren't and we didn't take that shit for an answer.

[DWags]

In other words, like Rouseau said, "We give up some rights, so that others might be protected". -1762.

Are we giving up right to property to insure our right to life and liberty?

No, I'm not. Meaning it's not consensual. Meaning there is no consent. There is no choice, therefore no consent.

There is a choice IMO. Armed revolution. It's not a radical thought.

[xsanguine]

No, I'm not. Meaning it's not consensual. Meaning there is no consent. There is no choice, therefore no consent.

There is a choice IMO. Armed revolution. It's not a radical thought.

But that has nothing to do with consent, homie.

[DWags]

There is a choice IMO.  Armed revolution.  It's not a radical thought.  

But that has nothing to do with consent, homie.

it has everything to do with lack of consent.   If you are passionate about all of your freedoms derived from natural rights, and don't want to lose any, and you don't consent, then you have alternatives.    

[xsanguine]

But that has nothing to do with consent, homie.

it has everything to do with lack of consent.   If you are passionate about all of your freedoms derived from natural rights, and don't want to lose any, and you don't consent, then you have alternatives.    

I'm passionate about consent. Being killed for not consenting is not an alternative.

[DWags]

it has everything to do with lack of consent.   If you are passionate about all of your freedoms derived from natural rights, and don't want to lose any, and you don't consent, then you have alternatives.    

I'm passionate about consent. Being killed for not consenting is not an alternative.

Here are some of your natural rights: Life, liberty and property. you are born with them. My original point was that in a social contract, we give up some rights for the protection of others. You want life, you give up some liberty and property. You want absolute liberty and property, you might have to give up your life fighting for it.

Fuck, I used to like talking to Jethro Bodine about shit like this till the wee hours as we were plowing ourselves with drugs back in the early 80's before Len Bias death. Now, I don't have the energy.

If you don't like my social contract argument. Fuck you. Blow me. I might disagree with what your saying, but no fucking way will I defend it with my life.

[xsanguine]

I'm passionate about consent. Being killed for not consenting is not an alternative.

Here are some of your natural rights:  Life, liberty and property.  you are born with them.  My original point was that in a social contract, we give up some rights for the protection of others.  You want life, you give up some liberty and property.   You want absolute liberty and property, you might have to give up your life fighting for it.  

I agree we are born with life and liberty.

Where was this social contract consented to? You're assuming consent. That is not consent, there was no consent given and therefore no contract. A contract is a two way agreement... not a "take it or you die" arrangement. This is getting extremely subjective and arbitrary. Why isn't this "social contract" you don't try to kill me or steal my shit and I won't try to kill you and steal your shit? Why isn't this "social contract" we both get to spank each other with bamboo sticks once a day in the morning (pull your pants back up Travis, I'm just making a point)? Why? Because it doesn't exist. There is no contract. There is no agreement. There is a minority imposing their will on everyone else through violence. That's not a contract and that's not an agreement.

If we're each born with life and liberty then at some point another individual has to impose their will on another in order to enact this "social contract". You have no more right to tell me what to do than I have to tell you what to do. That's what the article is about... none of what government imposes is consensual.
My analogy holds up with regards to the original point regarding consent... if I grab a woman by her hair and drag her out of a bad neighborhood where she's beaten up occasionally by a pimp or other hoes and tell her she owes me sex because I'm now providing protection to her... how is that in anybody's mind consensual?

Fuck, I used to like talking to Jethro Bodine about shit like this till the wee hours as we were plowing ourselves with drugs back in the early 80's before Len Bias death. Now, I don't have the energy.  

pics?

If you don't like my social contract argument.  Fuck you.   Blow me.  I might disagree with what your saying, but no fucking way will I defend it with my life.  

Whoah, man. We took a wrong turn somewheres. I thot we wuz jus havin conversationals?

[DWags]

Here are some of your natural rights:  Life, liberty and property.  you are born with them.  My original point was that in a social contract, we give up some rights for the protection of others.  You want life, you give up some liberty and property.   You want absolute liberty and property, you might have to give up your life fighting for it.  

I agree we are born with life and liberty.

Where was this social contract consented to? You're assuming consent. That is not consent, there was no consent given and therefore no contract. A contract is a two way agreement... not a "take it or you die" arrangement. This is getting extremely subjective and arbitrary. Why isn't this "social contract" you don't try to kill me or steal my shit and I won't try to kill you and steal your shit? Why isn't this "social contract" we both get to spank each other with bamboo sticks once a day in the morning (pull your pants back up Travis, I'm just making a point)? Why? Because it doesn't exist. There is no contract. There is no agreement. There is a minority imposing their will on everyone else through violence. That's not a contract and that's not an agreement.

If we're each born with life and liberty then at some point another individual has to impose their will on another in order to enact this "social contract". You have no more right to tell me what to do than I have to tell you what to do. That's what the article is about... none of what government imposes is consensual.
My analogy holds up with regards to the original point regarding consent... if I grab a woman by her hair and drag her out of a bad neighborhood where she's beaten up occasionally by a pimp or other hoes and tell her she owes me sex because I'm now providing protection to her... how is that in anybody's mind consensual?

Fuck, I used to like talking to Jethro Bodine about shit like this till the wee hours as we were plowing ourselves with drugs back in the early 80's before Len Bias death. Now, I don't have the energy.  

pics?

If you don't like my social contract argument.  Fuck you.   Blow me.  I might disagree with what your saying, but no fucking way will I defend it with my life.  

Whoah, man. We took a wrong turn somewheres. I thot we wuz jus havin conversationals?

No, wasn't trying to insult you was defering to your intellect.  Don't have the stamina I did as a young lad to think of the philosphes i've read and use shit.  Too old. But to answer you, Rouseau said it was consented to either explicitly or tacitly.

"that is passed over in silence, done without words, assumed, silent,"

[xsanguine]

I agree we are born with life and liberty.

Where was this social contract consented to? You're assuming consent. That is not consent, there was no consent given and therefore no contract. A contract is a two way agreement... not a "take it or you die" arrangement. This is getting extremely subjective and arbitrary. Why isn't this "social contract" you don't try to kill me or steal my shit and I won't try to kill you and steal your shit? Why isn't this "social contract" we both get to spank each other with bamboo sticks once a day in the morning (pull your pants back up Travis, I'm just making a point)? Why? Because it doesn't exist. There is no contract. There is no agreement. There is a minority imposing their will on everyone else through violence. That's not a contract and that's not an agreement.

If we're each born with life and liberty then at some point another individual has to impose their will on another in order to enact this "social contract". You have no more right to tell me what to do than I have to tell you what to do. That's what the article is about... none of what government imposes is consensual.
My analogy holds up with regards to the original point regarding consent... if I grab a woman by her hair and drag her out of a bad neighborhood where she's beaten up occasionally by a pimp or other hoes and tell her she owes me sex because I'm now providing protection to her... how is that in anybody's mind consensual?



pics?



Whoah, man. We took a wrong turn somewheres. I thot we wuz jus havin conversationals?

No, wasn't trying to insult you was defering to your intellect.  Don't have the stamina I did as a young lad to think of the philosphes i've read and use shit.  Too old. But to answer you, Rouseau said it was consented to either explicitly or tacitly.

"that is passed over in silence, done without words, assumed, silent,"

I tucker out eventually, too, man. Turtleneck dumps this stuff and then gets out of the way as he watches all of us fight over a flat screen tv on black friday.

[Sponsored content]