Did You Consent to be Governed?
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 1 month ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"Here’s a grand idea that’s never been tried: government by consent.
Everyone agreeing to it; no one being bound by it who has not. Whose right to walk away from it would be respected, if not.
Such a government would work very well because it would be limited in its workings. Really limited – by the always-present threat (to it) of withdrawal of consent. It would be powerless to do to people what the people did not want done to them.
To any of them.
It has been talked about, of course.
Most notably by the man who did the most to end any semblance of it: Abraham Lincoln – while he was talking about it. Here is a man who had the gall to lecture about “government of the people, by the people” after sending his legions to slaughter and subjugate “the people” who only wished to be governed by their consent.
They tried to walk away – and we all know what followed.
It was the same ideal put forward four score and seven years before – and promptly reneged upon once the cannon fodder had served their purpose. Did “the people” consent to be governed by the Constitution? They hadn’t even been asked to give their assent to the secret meeting at which the Constitution was put forward by a self-selected handful of people as the skullduggery replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which were much closer to the ideal of consent of the governed as there was very little in them about governing anyone – at the federal level, at least.
The states and the people retained almost all political authority.
This, of course, presented difficulties for the people who wanted very much to govern the people, without their consent. Which is precisely why they did not seek the consent of anyone – excepting themselves – to meet in secret to conjure a replacement for the Articles more to their liking.
One of the people most involved in removing the people as an impediment to their power was Alexander Hamilton, who was revered by Abe Lincoln for the obvious reason. Hamilton spoke often about the need – as he saw it – for an “energetic” and “vigorous” federal government. The people saw no need for it. So to Hell with them, said Hamilton – though probably not in those exact words. He used lawyerly words instead. Words such as “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” – the according-to-whom never addressed but obviously answered.
The fact that it was considered necessary by patriots such as George Mason of Virginia to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights says much about the Constitution’s intended (but unspoken) purpose. Why go to the trouble of formally enumerating what the federal government could not do to the people if the Constitution was designed to enshrine and protect the people from the exercise of power over them without their consent?"
---------------------------------------------
NIFO
"Here’s a grand idea that’s never been tried: government by consent.
Everyone agreeing to it; no one being bound by it who has not. Whose right to walk away from it would be respected, if not.
Such a government would work very well because it would be limited in its workings. Really limited – by the always-present threat (to it) of withdrawal of consent. It would be powerless to do to people what the people did not want done to them.
To any of them.
It has been talked about, of course.
Most notably by the man who did the most to end any semblance of it: Abraham Lincoln – while he was talking about it. Here is a man who had the gall to lecture about “government of the people, by the people” after sending his legions to slaughter and subjugate “the people” who only wished to be governed by their consent.
They tried to walk away – and we all know what followed.
It was the same ideal put forward four score and seven years before – and promptly reneged upon once the cannon fodder had served their purpose. Did “the people” consent to be governed by the Constitution? They hadn’t even been asked to give their assent to the secret meeting at which the Constitution was put forward by a self-selected handful of people as the skullduggery replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which were much closer to the ideal of consent of the governed as there was very little in them about governing anyone – at the federal level, at least.
The states and the people retained almost all political authority.
This, of course, presented difficulties for the people who wanted very much to govern the people, without their consent. Which is precisely why they did not seek the consent of anyone – excepting themselves – to meet in secret to conjure a replacement for the Articles more to their liking.
One of the people most involved in removing the people as an impediment to their power was Alexander Hamilton, who was revered by Abe Lincoln for the obvious reason. Hamilton spoke often about the need – as he saw it – for an “energetic” and “vigorous” federal government. The people saw no need for it. So to Hell with them, said Hamilton – though probably not in those exact words. He used lawyerly words instead. Words such as “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” – the according-to-whom never addressed but obviously answered.
The fact that it was considered necessary by patriots such as George Mason of Virginia to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights says much about the Constitution’s intended (but unspoken) purpose. Why go to the trouble of formally enumerating what the federal government could not do to the people if the Constitution was designed to enshrine and protect the people from the exercise of power over them without their consent?"
---------------------------------------------
NIFO
Maybe the solution is not one size fits all? I think that's the underlying point of the article.
If I don't consent to pay for government, then it shouldn't serve me. Voluntary free market for services.
David Friedman wrote a book (1978) that describes it, The Machinery of Freedom.
but clearly in the past 2 federal elections they broke the rules, at the very least (at the most, we have a usurper in the Oval Office)
so all bets are off, for me
Fraud invalidates that consent.
The Deep State rigs elections everywhere else on the globe. So why wouldn’t they do it here?
It takes a BIGGER tinfoil hat to believe they don’t.