The Consent Of The Governed And The Right To Form A New Government

Submitted by John Snyder

I did not always feel this way. I started out as a democrat, and voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 – the first presidential election I was eligible to vote for. My allegiance to the democratic party did not last long, and by the next presidential election cycle I was solidly in the republican camp. In the early 2000s I had my first conversation with someone whose politics – I now understand – can only be described as libertarian. It would be the beginning of my conversion away from establishment republicanism.

I remember unsettling questions generally about why the government needed to have authority over us and why it needed to have a monopoly on this power. I was not able to give a satisfactory answer – I had never thought much about the issue previously. The best I could do was say something along the lines of “its always been this way” or “I cant imagine life any other way” or “how will society function without a central government that has authority over us?” These are not uncommon answers for someone who hasn’t considered basic questions about the moral basis for authority.

My inability to imagine life any other way or to envision how a society might function in the absence of an authority only reflected my own shortcomings – my own lack of imagination and vision. “Because its always been this way” is fatalism – the idea that your future is preordained and you are powerless to do much about it.

These kinds of answers do not even begin to address the original question: why does their need to be an authority? Is it possible that coercive authority – that is, authority that is imposed on you against your will – can be abandoned as a fundamental principle of governance?

After mulling it over for the last 10 or so years, I think that the answer can be stated in one short sentence, one simple idea: You have the right to be free. Its as simple as that. Everything else is details.

You are not born into servitude and obligation as some would have you believe. You might choose to serve your neighbor and this is indeed a good thing. But you cannot be forced to do so and you should not feel guilty for deciding not to do so.

You might choose to live under the authority of a government, but in order for this authority to be morally legitimate, your voluntary consent is required. The Declaration of Independence speaks of government’s ‘just powers’ as being derived from the consent of the governed. We should be clear. This is not the consent of the majority or the consent of a bureaucrat or the consent of elected representatives. It is the consent of the governed, individual by individual. And this consent, even if given, can be rescinded at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Remember, you have the right to be free.

My friends, I write this to advocate for independence. This may seem shocking to some but it should not be. For it is in principle no different than deciding to quit a job that has become intolerable or leave a relationship that has become far more harmful than beneficial.

I do not claim that the problems with our present government cannot be solved with sufficient time and effort. But I do claim that the burdens of our current government have become so oppressive as to make the alternative – independence – the preferred course of action. Unlike the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, I see no need for a specific list of grievances. It is sufficient that we merely state our desire to be independent. We are not required to provide reasons, explanations or any justification. Remember, you have the right to be free.

Your liberty is not something you have to ask for, it belongs to you. It was given to you by your creator and cannot rightfully be taken away from you by any man, no matter the circumstances.

Let me be very clear as this is an important point. I am not advocating for revolution, overthrow of the government or any violence of any kind. I envision a political separation that is entirely peaceful and amicable. Indeed, there is historical precedence for this.

The peaceful separation in 1993 of Czechoslovakia into the Czech republic and Slovakia is perhaps the most recent example. Observers have noted that relations between the two peoples are today better than they have ever been, and refer to the separation as the ‘velvet divorce’. There is free movement of people, capital and goods between the two countries and there are no checkpoints at the border of any kind.

Another example is the peaceful dissolution of Sweden and Norway in 1905. The reining king of the two lands at the time, Oscar II, who was a Swede, deserves most of the credit for this. He declared that it would not be in the long term interests of Sweden to wage war on Norway to keep the kingdom together. Before the Swedish parliament on June 21st, 1905 he said: “However vital for the security of the Scandinavian peoples the union [of Sweden and Norway] is, it is not worth the sacrifices that the use of force would bring…..”

 

And lastly, Scotland will vote this year, 2014, on whether it will remain as part of the United Kingdom or become an independent nation. So even in our own time, peaceful political dissolution can occur and is occurring.

In a similar way I claim that there is no need for violence in our present circumstances. Independence can be achieved by simply ending our political allegiance to the existing powers and creating a new political structure, whatever form that may take.

Many will say that the burdens placed upon us by our government are necessary for the continuance of a civilized society, but I say to you that there is nothing civilized about force and coercion, which, in the absence of our voluntary consent, is the sole basis for our governments rule over us.

Others will say that certain material concerns – food, shelter, clothing, health care, jobs and other basics of life – must necessarily come before individual liberty if we are to survive, that liberty is meaningless when faced with starvation. I claim that physical survival is not the highest and most noble purpose of life. I further claim that the freedom of each and every individual to peacefully pursue happiness in whatever manner he or she sees fit is more important and has a higher priority than any man’s material needs, whatever they may be. To quote the Roman poet Juvenal:

It is to be prayed that the mind be sound in a sound body.

Ask for a brave soul that lacks the fear of death,

which places the length of life last among nature’s blessings,

which is able to bear whatever kind of sufferings,

does not know anger, lusts for nothing and believes

the hardships and savage labors of Hercules better than

the satisfactions, feasts, and feather bed of an eastern king.

                                    Juvenal, Satires number 10:

                                    ‘Wrong Desire is the Source of Suffering’

Some will say that the majority has spoken, and desires certain things, and that our elected representatives are therefore morally justified in pursuing these objectives, forcefully if necessary. I say there is nothing sacred about a majority – it’s just an arbitrary number. And it certainly does not provide any moral basis for forceful, coercive governance. Nevertheless it is all well and good for the majority to elect rulers and peacefully pursue all that it desires – so long as everyone else is free to elect their own rulers and peacefully pursue all that they desire.

Such a system – where we can voluntarily choose our political relationships just like we would choose our personal or economic relationships – can work, and work very well, so long as the individual’s right to choose is respected by all parties. If it is not, we, the liberty loving people on this earth, those of us who hold the idea of individual liberty above all else, we have the right and the duty to secure for ourselves and for our descendants the blessings of liberty and to defend against all attempts at encroachment.

I leave you with a quote from a famous American statesman:

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Those words were spoken by Abraham Lincoln on the house floor on January 12, 1848, in reference to the secession of Texas from Mexico, and they are as true today as they were then. Remember, you have the right to be free.

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
JustSayin
JustSayin

Where can I find more snyder articles?

MuckAbout

Unfortunately, another “saying” negates the entire article and is much closer to the truth (regardless of the BLM’s “retreat” in Nevada).

“Might makes right.” Period.

We may be the cleverest ape on the planet but since climbing down out of trees, we have not evolved to the point where we do not insist on pushing each other around. It may have been nearly 70 years since the last world wide killing spree ended but we are still the silly, mostly stupid, getting more dis-educated bunch of trouble makers on the face of the earth and have no problems cranking up modest killing machines whenever we think it’s to our advantage to do so.

It likely will not be too long before some idiot will set off a pocket nuke just to prove he has balls (or do it in the name of some “god”) and the world will change from top to bottom yet once again.

In the mean time, try to enjoy it day at a time and may all your Easter eggs be chocolate.

MA

Dan
Dan

That’s rich, quoting that infamous tyrant Lincoln about the right of secession. Of course, “Honest” Abe was correct in 1848 when he said that, he went horribly off course by 1861 when he broke treaties with the Confederate States of America and invaded sovereign states who only wanted to be left alone and go their own way. Sort of like a spouse wanting a divorce, but the man beats the wife nearly to death to force her to stay in the marriage. Lincoln had no regard for the Constitution or rule of law, sort of like the ass-clown now occupying the Oval Office who likes to compare himself to Lincoln. Read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo to find out why Lincoln was the worst President ever who destroyed the Constitutional Republic the founders gave us.

yahsure
yahsure

A lot of what i see/ experience are freedom issues. Building what you want on your land,what medicine you want to take. What you believe. I don’t need others telling me what to think. Of course im saying these things are fairly normal things with no negative effects on anyone else.

ss
ss

A good article. However, people need to understand that THEY and not the current political ruling class are supposed to be in control of government. When politicians fail to create the conditions in which most can prosper with good jobs, then citizens are SUPPOSED to replace them NOT re-elect them because citizens tolerate failure by accepting a monthly government check (bribe).

Many are struggling financially. But real prosperity is only about having a good job so citizens can save money to help themselves and spend some money to help our economy while debt is brought under control. Democrats and republicans are NOT doing this. If citizens prefer to allow republicans and democrats controlled by big money special interests to manipulate, control, and exploit them, then most only forfeit their own and their children’s ability to prosper and most will therefore face ever increasing hardship and poverty.

Either people are willing to stand up for themselves, their children, and future, or they aren’t. If they aren’t, then they automatically allow themselves to become nothing more than economic slaves.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

Re: SS. Good points and please let me add, consider why everything in our modern society is a “crisis”, and then consider those who’ve been in charge for decades who brought us here.
Bottom line, don’t re-elect anybody.

AWD

I always look to the Swiss form of government as being superior. If you’re not familiar with it, have a look.

How are we ever going to unload the socialists, communists, and fascists running this country? When 49% of the population is getting money from the government. When the government steals money at gunpoint from working people, and hands it over to people that won’t work. When these lazy shitbags now have a majority, and the criminal politicians are letting 12 million more Mexicans in to get on welfare and Medicaid. This country is finished, and somebody decided way back when that “majority rules”, and the FSA mob rules now. Only people with a job and landowners should be able to vote, not anyone working for the government or getting money from the government. The parasites and statist redistributors will collapse this country; which may be their plan all along.

Stucky

We hate bankers. Great!! But, the Swiss are revered. Strange.

Switzerland became a filthy rich country because of its banks, not because of its watches. But its banks used highly immoral practices to attract customers from all over the world, practices are only now being dismantled under international pressure.

And let’s not forget that under the pretense of “neutrality”, Switzerland has been historically guilty of terrible crimes that have never quite been punished. It clearly helped Hitler deport Jews and steal their wealth. It openly helped mafia bosses, dictators and drug cartels smuggle and hide huge fortunes.

The Swiss have pulled a Walter White — “Heisenberg, Breaking Bad” — maneuver. Being a crook, and being admired for it.

Their watches are overrated. But, I do love their chocolate.

flash
flash

Thought provoking excellence , Mr. Snyder and right you are in advocating a peaceful separation from the vice of tyrannical government, but to lean on the crutch of an old cliche’ ” the proof is in the pudding”. The doctrine of self-determination only applies to those native to counties outside the oligarchs’ Empire of Debt-Slavery.
The last time those of this bastardized Union attempted to excise themselves tom the tyranny of debt-slavery , 800,000 Americans died , and this number does not even factor in death by deprivation and disease caused by Union troop destruction of Southern infrastructure, crops and livestock.
Conclusion: Peaceful secession from tyrannical government is a pipe dream , for US at least.

TJF
TJF

Flash, unfortunately, I tend to agree with your sentiments on this issue. I wish the John Snyder view matched up to reality, but I don’t see any peaceful velvet divorce here. I see lots of tear gas, drones, hollow point bullets, MRAPs, and SWAT teams.

Austin
Austin

Wouldn’t it be nice. Naive and out of touch with reality though….

Bill
Bill

Unfortunately, your proposal is naive in that you fail to properly & thoroughly analyze relevant historical events (particularlt the American Revolution), relevant philosophers (such as Locke, Hume, etc.) and both historical & contemporary constitutional scholars.
You fail to raise many necessary questions:
Do you propose that random individuals can simply declare themselves free & independent of Federal, State, and Local government, regardless of the refusal of everyone else in your community to do the same?
Would you declare your home property a new nation? What about defense, coinage, regulating commerce, a system of laws, law enforcement, a judicial system, a place to put criminals, generating revenue, trade agreements, on and on and on.
What type of government do you propose to govern those who join you in declaring yourselves free & independent? What if your properties are not contiguous?
Have you considered that many consider that tacit, or implied, consent is sufficient justification for a government to rule?
I think you need to do a lot more studying & thinking.

I believe one step that would go very far in returning representation to the people would be to outlaw the parasitical entity of political parties, and convert campaigns to objective “documercials” approved by a citizens’ council, & a few other ideas I’m working on.

John Snyder
John Snyder

Bill,

All very good questions but the mistake you are making is that you are trying to find solutions for how society should govern itself. Stop looking for solutions. You are just one man and it frankly doesn’t matter how well versed in history and philosophy you are. You have no hope of finding a solution to a problem that is way beyond any one man’s ability to solve. You cannot see into the hearts and minds and souls of the mass of humanity and know what each individual’s hopes, dreams, fears, ambitions, strengths and weaknesses are, much less how they then should interact with each other.

Just adopt a position of non-violence and non-aggression (with a single exception in the case of self defense), and let the free market figure absolutely everything else out. Rule by a committee of wise men does not work, no matter the system. The 20th century has proven that beyond a doubt.

John Snyder
John Snyder

Occhiali, Please share away!

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading