Guest Post by Eric Peters
Most people agree that sex ought to be consensual.
Put another way, they think that no one should be forced to have sex against their will. And that if someone engages in sex without the consent of the other party, then it is sexual assault – and a moral horror.
Well, what about being governed without consent?
Does it not amount to the same thing?
Another person – or persons – force themselves on you. They violate you. They – or their proxies – literally lay hands on you if you attempt to get away or refuse to submit to them.
It may not be a sexual assault, but it is certainly assault.
There is one difference, of course.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The people who compose the government and the people who support what it does to you claim you have consented. This necessary claim – without consent, their actions are obviously assault – is asserted so frequently and so early that it becomes rote despite being obviously untrue. Kids hear of it in elementary school, where they are taught to venerate the man who had the audacity to speak of the “consent of the governed” while repudiating it through force of arms.
Consent means: permission given for something to happen or an agreement to do something.
Implicit in this – without which the word has no meaning – is the option to not give permission; to decline to agree to do something. Otherwise, you’re simply told what you will do and your only choice is to accept it or accept being punished for not accepting it.
Isn’t the latter precisely the true nature of our relationship to the government?
Some will say you do have a say – that you may vote. But that is not the same thing as giving your consent and it certainly doesn’t give you the right to consent for others.
Which is an absurdity.
Voting amounts to being presented with usually disagreeable choices not of your own making and no option to refuse any of them. If you don’t vote, others choose – and by some evil transmutation, the choices of these other people become (legally) binding on you.
How can this be characterized as the “consent of the governed”?
It’s clever wordplay, that’s all. Of a piece with the elegant preface to that contract none of us consented to called the Constitution of the United States. It states: “We, the People. . . ”
It really means: A few people. The literal handful of men who gathered in secret and without any mandate from other people let alone We, the People – to write this document, which they then managed to get a slightly larger but still minuscule number of supposed “representatives” of the people to accept on their behalf but without their consent.
Votes were taken, certainly. And it is equally true that some did in fact approve. A majority of a very small minority. But no contract was presented to every American for his agreement or not. Which – if words have meaning – means those Americans never consented to be governed by it. Their consent was simply presumed – exactly in the same way that a rapist sometimes claims she meant “yes” even though she said “no.”
One may say that the logistics involved in presenting a contract to every American for his approval – or not – would be difficult. Absolutely. But it does not affect the question of consent. People either did – or they did not.
Most clearly did not.
How many signatures are on the document? Is it 330 million? 100 million? Even 3,929,314 million? The latter being the number of Americans alive in 1789, the year the Constitution was “ratified” by a much smaller number of Americans.
Thirty nine Americans, to be specific. These thirty nine affixed their signatures – so the Constitution can rightly (morally) be said to bind them. But that leaves 3,929,275 Americans who did not affix their signatures and who therefore did not consent to it. Their consent was simply presumed by the 39 – which is a species of effrontery words are inadequate to convey.
If even a third of those 3,929,275 million people wanted no part of the Constitution – wished to not be governed by anyone other than themselves – the thing is outrageous. Poultices such as “representation” and “democracy” are offered to sooth the wound, but they do not alter the fact that whatever the thing is, it is not done with the consent of the governed.
And – as the great 19th century Libertarian writer Lysander Spooner pointed out – those 39 signers well as all the “representatives” of the time – are long-ago dead and buried. There is not a single living person who has formally given consent to be governed by the Constitution. Some 330 million Americans are nonetheless bound by the dead hands of 39 Americans.
How is this different than a claim that an indenture contract signed in the year 1680 is binding on that man’s great-great-great-great grandson?
Thomas Jefferson wrote that one generation has no moral right to bind another. He was partially right about that. No individual has the right to bind any other individual. You may only consent for yourself, not for others.
And if they have not given their consent, then you have no more right to presume they have given it – and to act on that presumption – than a sex fiend has the right to presume his victim is a willing participant in his degradations.
Excellent piece Eric. That’s what I call chopping at the root rather than hacking at the branches. This is where the battle must be pitched. This obvious truth will seem radical to many for lack of exposure to
such for some time, just as one is somewhat overwhelmed by the sunlight after a long overcast period. Thanks, David
Good arguments for Freedom; but unfortunately, we all have to live under some government somewhere; the oppressed leave bad ones for better ones, and sometimes rebel. Southerners tried to get free of Northern Tyranny but 864,000 Southerners became casualties per Wiki. We were NOT Reconstructed and we are still being raped (as are all Conservative Americans now). Pray that Trump can cut the Vampire Squid’s tentacles from our throats.
WHY do we have to live under some government somewhere?
Always a ruling force. Local gangs have the leader(s), rural towns have the leaders (power center), then up the scale. It’s in the genes; wolf pack, cow herd, turkey cluster (?). Need the next evolution. Maybe never, til the end of time. Learn to duck it, if you can.
Excellent point David. “Chopping at the root” Bravo! Another Thoreau man i.e. a man of principle. Reducing the debate to consent of the governed cuts out a lot of politician’s bullshit explanations. If I don’t cede consent then they have to admit they’re illegitimate. That their sole claim on our lives is that they can cage and/or kill us. Period. Forget all the ‘we the people’ bullshit. That’s why I refuse to vote-to send the clear, unadulterated message that they are power mongers with their boots on the necks of innocent people and I am a sovereign individual.
Of course consent of the governed died at Appomattox but we’ll have to wait until the rest of the country catches up with us.
I don’t vote either. As PJ O’Rourke said, “It only encourages the bastards.” Many “spurious” arguments are made for implied consent. If those arguments are accepted or allowed to stand, our goose is cooked. Consenting to a document which authorizes the government to pass any laws or create any regulations it deems in the “general welfare”, and allowing that government to levy taxes to pay for them, is the equivalent of agreeing to be enslaved, and fastening the shackles on our own ankles. There are only a few principles upon which the whole issue of liberty rests. Self ownership, with all it entails and the non-aggression principle being the two most obvious.
I hope to see more of your posts on TBP. We have to open the eyes of a lot of people and the tyranny clock is ticking.
A parallel – if they make a crap law – like prohibition – and folks disregard it are they ruling – perhaps by a thread….. Compliance spells consent.
I had the big idea a few months ago that every 10-20 years we should get vote on whether we want to pay property tax anymore. Just because s0me idiots decades ago said, “ok” doesn’t mean every ensuing generation should have to pay. Just one example. This reasoning is, of course, why ‘they’ put the income tax in the constitution (sort of).
All taxation is immoral and amounts to slavery. It cannot be logically or ethically defended. It can only be maintained by force or the threat of force.
Read “The Law that Never Was” about the supposed ratification of the 16th Amendment that laid the Constitutional foundation for direct taxation (the income tax). From all the documented evidence (all shown in the book), nowhere near the correct number of states actually approved the Amendment. Many passed a massively altered version (not allowed), or rejected it outright. Nonetheless, as Wilson required its passage to fund WW1 and to pay off the criminal Federal Reserve debt obligations, he instructed his Sec. of State Filander Knox to simply consider it ratified. Given the cumbersome communication of the time, most states never questioned that enough had actually ratified it. When the evidence was presented to the Congress in the 90s, they said it was a “Judicial matter,” when presented to the Supreme Court, they said it was a “legislative matter.” As most states’ income taxes are premised on the federal income tax, the consequences of the truth getting out would be staggering. Just more lies our government tells us, the media parrots, and the worthless government-approved text books indoctrinate with.
What the fuck ever.
A whole lot of talk with no solution offered except, by implication, anarchy.
Just because the system has been ass-raped doesn’t mean the concept is bad, only that those who are either gullible/complicit to the point of coma, or abusive to the point that they should be killed, are the true perpetrators.
I get that the southern States were within their Constitutional right to leave the Union. I get that the Feds are beyond tyrannical. I get that we’re all screwed. But by all means, offer up a better concept. Just because this country threw it into the sewer doesn’t obviate the absolute necessity for SOME form of government, if only to protect those within its boundaries from whatever other charismatic despoiler would try to take what you have by force. This is a dog-eat-dog world. Come on; proffer up a replacement system, one that’s actually realistic.
Where the hell do you think those ’39’ came from? They were chosen by a fairly substantial number of people to represent them. In fact, there was a lot of problems between the delegates because they knew they would have to explain to their ‘constituents’ why they had went against their wishes. And, then, just like now, a huge number of people could give one shit less about anything except dinner, grog and sex.
And one thing is NOT stated; we all have the right to go somewhere else and renounce this government and citizenship. So don’t tell me we have no choice. How long would anything decent last if everyone could do whatever they wanted, and fuck everyone else?
I detest what this gov. has become. The morals of this country are repugnant. I could always haul my ass elsewhere. But I’ve been elsewhere, and sad and shitty as this place has become, it still beats, all things considered, practically every other place.
I think I hear what your saying, but it has such a pie-in-the-sky feel about it, it approaches lunacy. It sure doesn’t jibe with what I know of the actual exhibitions of human nature.
Somebody is going to be in control. And the human race has consistently shown that the vast majority have no desire to control themselves unless the price is too steep. Hence, in one form or another, government.
You bring up a number of important points which deserve to be addressed. Since the nature of Eric’s post was “consent” regarding the Constitution, I focused my remarks on the consent versus coercion. It would be impossible here, to address even partially, let alone adequately, every issue you raise, whether it be human nature & incentives, the state of morals, better forms of governance, etc. I would be happy, at some point to discuss all of them. In my opinion, proceeding to the drafting and implementation of policies based upon principles we are not yet agreed upon, is a fool’s errand. First we need to establish principles which are appropriate to all men and at all times. Having done that, we will have something solid to guide us when we are in doubt or disagreement. I will only comment on two other points you brought up. You said this place was better than others. I agree; that’s why I live here and not elsewhere. However, to suggest that we are not as bad as others, is no more a recommendation of our moral or ethical integrity, than to boast that we beat our wives half as often as our neighbor. Finally, the often resorted to but thoughtless suggestion that if you don’t like it here you are free to leave. When frontiers still existed, that smarmy suggestion might have held water and been taken seriously. Not today when every inch of the earth is controlled by one governmental tribe or another.
I didn’t say we are not as ‘bad’, I stated that the conditions here are better than elsewhere. This place is just as fraught with evil as every other place. I made no mention of moral superiority because it is non-existent. Obviously you haven’t read many of my comments.
Smarmy? The point of saying we are free to leave was just that; we are free to make that choice. We are not coerced into giving consent if we do not wish to. It is implied that we have accepted this lesser of two evils by our staying put. Do NOT put words into my mouth, such as “love it or leave it”. That is not who I am.
First, I think we agree on the terrible condition our country is in, and probably on some things we would consider an improvement. Second, when you said this was a “sad and shitty” place, yet better than elsewhere, that seems to be the equivalent of saying, it’s not as ‘bad’ as other places. Third, I put no words in your mouth, so please don’t put any in mine. I did not say or suggest that you were saying “love it or leave it”. I suggested that the freedom to move from a place one finds oppressive,to someplace else is not much of a choice, in light of the fact that there are no free frontiers left, and that therefore, no viable options exist, other than to work with what you have. If you were taken on board a ship, either kidnapped or of your own volition, and while out to sea, the captain of the ship began mistreating you, would it be useful or seem reasonable if he told you that you were free to leave? Suggesting there is value in the freedom to jump overboard or that by remaining you have implied consent is nonsense. The point of Eric’s post appeared to me to be that we have “not” given consent to the Constitution. I agree with that evaluation.
Besides which, we are NOT free to leave, without going through a bureaucratic process and agreeing to pay taxes even after we leave….Thank you Bushes….
TS, may I suggest that, rather than fighting one another, we seek to find common ground on how to improve what we have inherited. I should prefer to have you as an ally than an enemy.
Here you go TS:
No government imposed on a society means anarchy (each person choosing for himself all of his actions for himself and without restraint).
How many successful anarchistic societies have existed in history?
Define “successful.”
Lasting for at least long enough as a cohesive functioning society to be of note in history.
Lots of societies meet that definition. In fact, every one we know of.
So name them, the anarchist societies that have no controlling government.
(Even Somalia is governed by various Islamic warlords)
Hunter/gatherer groups of maybe 200 people, or less, have existed since time immemorial. They aren’t pure anarchy, but they are simple and consensual.
They have a tendency to kill or expel any of their members that don’t go along with the rest of them and the tribal leader (which all of them have and have had).
That isn’t my definition of consensual.
How many successful Governed societies have existed in history?
Fixed it for you:)
If you want to opt-out of being governed, then you have to promise not to use the things government provides. Stay off public roads, don’t board aircraft that use FAA services, don’t use the courts (even to file your property records or enforce your rights).
So, I can only agree (which today means paying about 50% collective taxation), or do nothing? What about say 5% collective taxation. You just raise a strawman. Don’t smoke around him or he’ll burn.
Government has nothing to provide other than what it has already stolen. I have probably paid more taxes in my lifetime than most. The argument that I should promise not to take any benefit from what has already been stolen from me, or stop complaining about the thief, hardly merits refutation. I would prefer that everything you mentioned was privatized. I’m not opposed to governance, I’m opposed to coercion.
Privatized in, say, a toll booth at the end of your driveway that charges you each time you set out on the private road in front of your house?
That won’t do it legally, although if you have no income and can evade the cops, it may do it practically…
GOVERNMENT does NOT provide those things. It first STEALS from everyone, skims off plenty for itself, its employees, and its crony friends, then gives back a pittance. Additionally, government holds the MONOPOLY position on these services and ACTIVELY PREVENTS COMPETITION – even at the point of a gun. Just try flying without FAA approval, building your own road without the blessing of government, setting up your own courts whose decisions would not be met with force, etc. from the existing monopoly structure. Sure, you are fine with letting someone have freedom…..now that you are the beneficiary of the theft. Sorry, forcible THEFT is ALSO NOT CONSENT!!!!!!
This POTUS was elected to restore Constitutional Law & Order, and the administration of Justice; if the Oligarchs stop him, then we are justified in considering alternatives.
Exactly.
I do not consent to being governed.
FWIW, I wrote this back in Denninger’s forum 10 years ago … I no longer consent. Nothing’s changed.
How do we non-consenting governed escape? We don’t. It’s time to change governance where we are. The question is HOW do we do this?
I don’t plan to leave, this is my home. I believe we need to start by identifying the core principles which are fundamental to liberty and human flourishing. Without identifying, clarifying and reaching some agreement on those principles , we have neither rudder nor compass to guide us.
I nominate Christianity; now we’ll fight over goodness and virtue?
I don’t plan to leave, this is my home. I believe we need to start by identifying the core principles which are fundamental to liberty and human flourishing. Without identifying, clarifying and reaching some agreement on those principles , we have neither rudder nor compass to guide us.
“It really means: A few people. The literal handful of men who gathered in secret and without any mandate from other people let alone We, the People …”
Been a while since I’ve posted this ….. Tiny Red Dot ….. worth your time, believe me. Really, it’s gooood.
Loved the article … and comments.
But, what am I supposed to DO about it? Run around with a billboard strapped to my moobs — “I do not consent!!”
Should I send a “I do not consent!” letter to the IRS? Should I yell “I do not consent!” to the cop about to give me a speeding ticket? Should I ….. well, you get the picture.
Good article, well written.
I would submit that immigrants (including my grandparents), by their very act of moving here did indeed give consent.
They were defrauded by lies about what this country supposedly was. These are the same frauds and lies the government shovels upon us in textbooks and other lie-filled documents about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, the rights of citizens, etc. Not much different from every politician that lies incessantly and is never held accountable or charged with fraud.