"Consent of the governed" and "Sanction of the victim"

[leongash]

Derivitingo

[jwoodswce]

I'll need to make a video response; but, in general, the argument in this video drops context. Consent of the govern refers not to specific policies, administrations, or parties but to the fundamental political constitution. Jefferson received the idea from John Locke, and both advanced them as justifying arguments for fundamental constitution change that actually occurred.

[XOmniverse]

What if some of the governed don't consent?

The entire point of the concept "consent of the governed" is to tell people who clearly don't consent that their state is founded on consent and thats why they don't have to consent.

If that didn't make sense, you're right; it doesn't. That's the point.

[jwoodswce]

The most easily recognizable symptom of a constitution lacking the consent of the governed is civil war.

Off the top of my head, there are three modes for those that do not consent to the fundamental constitution: (1) make war on the government (i.e., the civil wars within Muslim countries), (2) leave the jurisdiction of that government (i.e., immigration), and (3) withdrawal within the polity (various forms including outlawry and hiding out in the wilderness).

[XOmniverse]

A version of #3 is my goal. Though it will be out in the open; get a sizable percentage of the population to abandon the state altogether and just start living anarchistically.

[dbmcmillan]

It's interesting that you're an objectivist and you don't believe there can be consent of the governed. By being alive you consent to natural laws that exist in the universe because you have no choice - whether you like it or not you are governed by the law of gravity, for instance. Principles of government can be derived through objective reason. The fact that some people disagree, out of stubbornness, to principles that are objective and undeniable, is totally irrelevant.

[XOmniverse]

I don't identify as an Objectivist anymore.

I don't consent to natural laws so much as they are there and cannot be disobeyed at all. Ideas about how social systems should be organized are not themselves fundamental physical laws even if some theories are grounded in facts.

[dbmcmillan]

If you can prove that reason demands consent to certain laws they are fundamental facts. Murder for example. As long as you want your life protected, you have to consent not to murder others. If you kill or try to kill someone, you really forfeit your own life because that person, in their freedom, can defend themselves. Those who don't consent, because they don't mind to die, wouldn't under any circumstance, so their consent doesn't matter at all. Very simplified example though.

[XOmniverse]

The laws of physics do not demand consent to anything. That's the very kind of deontological thinking that Rand rejected.

I agree with the idea that initiation of force is bad for very logical reasons, but thats not the same as claiming that initiating force is somehow violating a physical law.

I also reject the idea that a monopoly is necessary in order to prevent the initiation of force.

[dbmcmillan]

Laws can be just when they, because of reason, attract the universal consent of the governed. We can have a state of chaos where everyone fights against everyone, but the first step out of it is for each individual to recognize that his own sovereignty ends with himself. It is a natural harmony that takes place between free people, a state that is destroyed when one individual breaks his obligation to it. In that sense we consent. Not that we have to follow it.

[dbmcmillan]

It's just that people who do follow it, follow it because they want their lives protected. Therefore, they consent. Those who assert some latent authority over others do not care about the harmony that is naturally formed so they break their obligations to it. That does not mean they don't consent. It means they don't care about their consent and their life enough to live together with others beyond a primal state of nature. 'Consent' to certain principles is an empirical observation.

[rickyPG]

"Consent of the governed" < I take that to be understood as General Consent... or as long as most go along with it.... not that every individual would be ok with the government. I don't think any government could get total consent.

Question? How do you define anarchy? Most visualize it as unorganized lawlessness? Have you read "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by John Hasnas?

[XOmniverse]

I haven't read that, but I do not visualize anarchy as unorganized lawlessness.

[utubesucksbawls]

if you hate the government so much why don't you stop living off my tax money?!

[XOmniverse]

How am I doing that, exactly? I work for a living and pay taxes on my income.

[utubesucksbawls]

oh, you work and pay taxes now?

some big anarchist you are... pfft

[fr3thinker]

A separate point still - ok, just say that the world went over to Anarchical systems. Do you really think that people are up to living in such systems without other bodies trying to form States? Who would try to form States? Those who want mega power or believe in their religions will for example. Other States might be set up for order reasons then be taken over by coercives with agendas.

[XOmniverse]

Right now they would. The important thing is to change the culture by spreading information. Once we have "cultural anarchy" then a real anarchy can form.

[fr3thinker]

XO, do you really see the feasibility of an Anarchy (or separate Anarchies) surviving in this era alongside other States? Isn't this idealistic in this era?

[XOmniverse]

In this era? Yes. Today? No.

Also, you're still thinking in terms of countries. What would make "two anarchies" next to each other separate?

[fr3thinker]

I was actually thinking each anarchy would be very much smaller than a country, more like a local village or town.

[jwoodswce]

Actually, Anarchy exists today in pockets of this world, see John Rapley's "The New Middle Ages," _Foreign Affairs_, May/June 2006. In fact, it presages the rise of local gangs and warlords.

[fr3thinker]

OK, I've thought about it. You dudes on this particular forum (that being XO's forum) I think I could live with in an Anarchy because I think you are all basically respectful of others as much as you are of yourselves. It's the others out there who only think of themselves that I hate living with in Democracy that I'd also not like to live beside in an Anarchy. Such people make life all the poorer...

[fr3thinker]

(continues) I actually think that when we have people who do not respect others then we are probably better off living in a benevolent Dictatorship of some sort - a system that will sort out the bullies, the selfish and the pure nasty.

[Franc28]

Great idea buddy, have a bunch of bullies and thieves "sort out" the bullies and thieves. Real smart.

[fr3thinker]

I said benevolent dictatorship by the way, buddy.

[fr3thinker]

Yeah, but you miss my point. I see it as necessary that the State bullies the thieves and bullies. But actually it doesn't because often theives and bullies have taken over the State, or else the State is weak and paralysed by Human Rights Laws that actually protect the bullies and thieves. I see your point too.

[fr3thinker]

They claim (States) that they got consent by the original agreement of the will of all to opt out of the State of Nature. Now they just claim that a simple majority gives the government right to run the State for a period of time. If those who did not vote for the government accept the democratic system or are apathetic (or a mixture of the two) then there is Consent of the Governed / Santion of the Victim - yep, which are probably the same thing as you say.

[fr3thinker]

Plus, as long as the Police and the Army are allowed to be the dominant means of force then Consent of the Governed / Santion of the Victim exists and continues. That basically goes for all modern States - be they so-called democratic systems or dictatorships of any kind.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"Smash the state!" -- Would work well on a t-shirt.

I think ye on to something. Consent of the governed is certainly a joke of a concept, but assholes dance around that by invoking social contract (which is likewise a joke of a concept). Further, I think most people sanction the state (by voting, for starters), and the rest of us as are out-gunned literally and figuratively (as you observed) to the point of pure subjugation. Limits ones options, you might say.

[blackacidlizzard]

If the only places I can get food are from either a mass murder or a serial rapist, my trade does not imply approval.

My vote is not a sanction, it is a small measure of action of self-interest by one not yet willing to take more dangerous action.

[fr3thinker]

Isn't anyone who is voting really just sanctioning the state? Also, isn't anyone who is not voting but not vocalising anti State rhetorich or armed struggle against the State also either Consenting to the State or at least Sanctioning it by default? So, everyone here is Sanctioning their States I think, everyone one of us here, if not Consenting.

[blackacidlizzard]

"Isn't anyone who is voting really just sanctioning the state?"

No. For the reasons stated above.

In the end, I decide what path I take. I aim for the best possible, and when I follow the rules or attempt to use the system that is in place, it is not a sanction upon that power.

To understand that there are men who weild incredible power is not the same as sanctioning that power.

[dv8xtc]

if the only place you can get your food is from killers then it is not a trade. killers do not produce food.

your vote is a sanction making the killers your only source of food.

[dv8xtc]

you could withold your vote and go find a farmer willing to trade.

if the killers don't allow this do not corrupt the meaning of trade to deal with exceedingly problematic circumstances.

...otherwise you go from being a victim to a participant engaging in rationalized self delusion. [which makes you worse than the killers]

...kinda the world we are in, huh?

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

I believe citizens are responsible for the governments actions. The fact tha we can't "do anything about it" doesn't wash with me. Thats the excuse that people use as we sit back on our ass, letting the government do what it does.

Its the difference between 'blame' and 'responsibility'. Some liberarians and an-caps only want "blame" to exist, and they want to do away with responsibility, which lets us conveniently pretend that theres no blood on our hands for what our government does.

[1tinsoldier]

Alex.....Here here and bravo! When people ask me, for example, "when will the government decriminalize drugs?" I respond - "When it becomes an issue that will win elections". I hold little respect and no love for our politicians, but how can we blame them for not championing causes that will prevent them from being elected? We need to get of our asses and talk sense into our fellow citizens. Only then will the politicians follow. Good vid as always, XO.

[Vinifera7]

Interesting comparison. It could definately be said that the "sanction of the victim" concept would be applicable in describing the relationship between the people and the state in some situations; particularly when legislators make decisions that aren't backed by the majority of popular vote. To me, the phrasing "consent of the governed" couldn't possibly apply there.

[icmp]

Of course, as a direct result of being so grossly limited in size and scope you would probably also find it to lack the characteristic of being monopolistic and cohercive and therefore wouldn't even be a "government" in the normal sense - which is why, as an anarchist myself, I would probably accept such a scenario.

[icmp]

You could potentially have consent (and participation) in certain VERY limited instances of "government" (loosely defined) at VERY local levels (think colonial Pennsylvania) ..