I just could not have said it any better myself! When will THEY learn?? Will it come to "Civil Disobedience" or will it need to go further than that. One can only hope the sheep wake up & elect some wise individuals to represent them, or I fear "We the People" will pay the price.

"The Consent of the Governed" and "The Sanction of the Victim" are semantically equivalent.

New Country? Revolution? Despair?

The Atlas Shrugged model was for those who are producers to "leave" (shrug/go on strike) forcing the collapse of a society in which only the takers were participants. I think we all realize that doesn't actually work in the real world, as there is really no place to go. Sir John Templeton did go, however. Angered over the tax structure in this country, he renounced his citizenship, went (I think) to Bermuda, became a British National, and continued as an investor with his investment base in Bermuda and free from US taxation. Then he formed the Templeton Fund (for other investors to invest in) and the Templeton Foundation (where he parked his personal wealth, free from taxation). In effect, he shrugged, but only partially. He remained a participant in the economy. The true shrugger departs completely from the economy, going to a Galt's Gulch invisible to the rest of the world.

Not in the USA any more!

It takes a supermajority to change it. We'll never achieve that, as long as something near to a majority is on the public dole in one way or another.

I was distinguishing between "We" (the producers) and "They" (the takers/moochers) -- the same distinction made by Ayn Rand. And yes, Marxist ideas are at the root of the current division. The idea that someone else's need, however real, places an obligation on me, is an idea that Ayn Rand would have fought against. An individual can survive quite well without the group, at least until the individual grows old, sick, or otherwise infirm. An individual can survive in the wilderness. The species, however, cannot. The species needs the group in order to achieve procreation and continuation. The balance between collective, individual and leader was best defined under the Constitution (except for the issue of slavery, which was resolved later), and the Constitution set up a government of a sort of aristocracy (landowners, people who could afford to give time to governing with little to no compensation). We have departed from that sort of government to a different sort of aristocracy -- one of greed and power, in which one can become wealthy from the "job" of governing. Therein lie many of our problems. The more democratic we become, the less our government is actually able to govern effectively.

Hello, Ranter,

The discussion would require essay-length or book-length writing. Fat chance!

Instead, just brief highlights. Humans are rational animals, each a unique individual, unrepeatable and unlike any predecessors. Humans are also social animals. The group, the tribe or the nation are essential to the survival of the individuals. That sets up a situation where individuals with strengths in various traits become leaders, a necessary ingredient of the reality of human living. The balancing act that this makes necessary requires a setup that is realistic, functional and moral. Our Founding Fathers produced the best setup of that kind in the history of mankind. In the 200+ years since, the conditions and the development have changed in many ways. Among the changes was the rise of Marxist ideology. It has spread as a plague of sorts and, under variety of labels attempting to increase the appeal and disguise its nature, poisoned many minds, analogous to cancer. The adherents fail to see that it is an Utopia, contrary to human nature. They wish to change the human nature, speaking of "new man", "superman" or some such dream. In my opinion, in our lifetime, there were only two "potuses" [Or is it "poti"? Not "potty" for sure ;-)] who displayed, even while imperfect for sure, a decent combination of realistic, functioning, honest and courageous leadership: Truman and Reagan. I do not think that it is likely that the US will remain forever the best country for thriving and advancement of humans. Somewhere, some group of dedicated thinkers and leaders will come up with a different Constitution, more resilient to the corrupting degradations slowly destroying the foundation of our country. Knowing that I aspire to be an Objectivist, you know in which direction I would like to push.

There is much more that can be said about all this and I do not pretend to know enough to do the job even modestly well.

When you lament the divergence between WE and THEY, to me, you illustrate the evils of divisiveness. The balance between collective, individual and leader cannot be perfect, but we ought to be able to come very close to optimal. The key is, in my opinion, to achieve, through thorough and unbiased education, the best possible competency of each and every citizen.

Stay well!

Sincerely,
Maritimus

OK, that makes more sense. The OP above presented it as a direct quote from her.

No error. She is restating the founders' principles. See the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph.

Hello handyman,
A favorite quote from one of my favorite economist/philosophers:
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Regards,
O.A.

Good Link!!! -- j
.

I don't consent either. Corruption is certainly a problem, but I think a more fundamental problem is that politicians, policy makers and their elite consultants (i.e. academics and assorted lobbyists) operate on the theory that they know what is the greatest good for the greatest number. That theory firmly rests on philosophic variants of altruism. The fatal conceit of the elite is that they really believe in this greater good theory and that they are its priests. One of the best activities of Gulchers is to chip away at the foundation of "greater good" theories and practitioners.

Let's change it.

I think her comment is correct, but I have some issues with how one can NOT consent when they are pointing guns at you. They would simply crush me in the USA if I didnt do what our government demanded, so am I consenting?

In a free society, it should. We are a democratic republic, but we are not a free society, because we do not have sufficient checks against the power of the majority.

Why should you have to leave your home? Can't you just say "I do not consent"? Will a certified letter do the trick?

"If you do not consent, your choices are: rebel, leave or endure."
Unfortunately, that doesn't ring completely correct. That we are constrained to the Choice Options effected by others kinda says it all, doesn't it?
The choice to Rebel against our Rulers (those who make the "laws") can be downright dangerous. The choice to "Leave" is impractical for most folks, and anyway, where might one "escape" to in this world of the The Governed? Thus most will simply "Endure", which is a crappy Choice indeed, is it not?
Thus our Consent is implied despite that most of the 7 billion people did not so consent, instead enduring the edicts of our ancestors but never ratified by we humans who deny their own sovereignty ant indeed, their very Right to Life.

Those who do not consent can do one of the following:
1. Revolt, by arms if necessary
2. Withdraw (shrug, leave)
3. Stay and put up with it, thus consenting.

The problem is that WE also get the government that THEY deserve.

We are experiencing the downside of democracy -- the tyranny of the majority. The advantage of democracy is that the majority of the people elect a government that serves their interests. The disadvantage of democracy is that the majority of the people elect a government that serves their interests. The majority have voted to take the money of the producers and give it to the takers.

One of her more significant errors. This comment is not intended to diminish in any way the importance of her body of work.

And what of those who vote against the incumbent government? Can they secede since they gave no consent? And what of children or other disenfranchised (like felons)? Does the government have any power over them? You mention the state of affairs where there is an "extent [to which] a country is not free." One could argue we live in such a country now. Does the government have any legitimate power over us?