What Makes A Government Legit?

This thread is asking how one goes about giving consent to a government, and equally how one goes about taking away their consent. Almost everyone alive today would say consent makes a government legit, but do not know how to either give consent or get consent. So, they really don't know. Were the Americans who rebelled against the British in the right? Was their government legit upon succession from Britain? What made the succession of the USA from Britain legit? If you don't know, then you don't know if your government is nothing more than "a scam" or not if you live in the USA. So, its the most important question of a USA citizens life in many cases.

Its quite shocking how almost no other members of ATS have never put much thought into the aspect of our lives with the most impact... the foundation of our governments. We look back on history and view past governments as barbaric and backwards. Monarchies and Dictatorships are considered to be invalid and void of authority. No one under Hitler for example is expected by us to have taken their government as legitimate. Yet we are total hypocrites, because never do modern people take so much as a few minutes of thought to ask them selves whether THEIR government is legitimate. Just as surfs of Kingdoms of the past, subjects of Fascist Germany and Italy, and servants of communist regimes told their children their government was among the best in the world. And those populations would absolutely entirely believe it just as sure as today's adults believe their authorities are legitimate. So, that does not make sense that people could blindly believe it when they consider the vast majority of government in the historic timeline to be illegitimate for specific reasons.

Usually when I write a thread this long-winded I only get one to three replies, but I really want 100 of them because this is an important topic.

The most important structure of government is the foundation. How much thought have you put into the foundation of modern government? A strong foundation leads to a strong society. A weak foundation leads to a weak society. Is the USA strong or is it in decay? Does it have a strong foundation or a weak one? Given it is in a state of weakness, it would be foolish not to look at the foundation and judge it.

I'm in the process of settling to New Hampshire because its libertarian policies have made it among the most successful among all states in the USA. Its constitution seems very good to me and seems to tell us the correct foundation of government:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

Source: www.nh.gov...

So the foundation of government is consent according to today's philosopies. Other theories common in the past but rare now say that the foundation is brute force, and others would say the foundation is divine authority from God. So, if we are born independent of government, at what point do we consent our self into the system? When it comes to commercial contracts, there can be implied consent. Yet, this is strongly discouraged. What is encouraged when it comes to consenting under a commercial contract is a written consent reflected by a signature on both sides. The signed contract is what a judge calls evidence of consent, while in many states an implied or verbal contract won't be enforced because of the lack of evidence of consent. Furthermore, there is expected to be equal negotiating power for the strongest possible contract agreement. What wouldn't be valid would be for someone to say "Either sign this contract or I'll tell everyone about your love affair.". That would be considered an invalid extortion instead of a valid contract. Its interesting that corporations with millions of employees have customized agreements with each one. So, there is a big difference between a forced agreement "under duress" and a voluntary agreement.

Consent is important for social contracts more than commercial. So, would it make sense to say a social contract also needs to be signed and written by parties with negotiating power? Traditionally consent is considered to place by voting. Certainly the United States did not form by voting. It formed by decree of 13 signors of the US constitution. So, it would appear that 360,000,000 Americans are now bound by the signatures of 13 dead people. Is that proper consent?

Is it appropriate to volunteer other people to do things, and have volunteered if you are volunteering them, or is it not volunteering and not consenting at all, but rather forcing someone to do something they are not onboard with? I disagree. I have been constented into the system apparently by being born, but the constitution of my state says that isn't appropriate. I agree that we are born independent and we cannot be forced into the government system without consent on an individual basis. Collective consent is a majority forcing its will upon a minority, which is wrong. Common law is the law with or without government... that is what makes it common law. Without government consent or being part of government, there is still natural law as reflected by common law. In other words, we have natural rights of self-defense that do work to some extent whether or not government is working.

Consent must begin with the individual, not the collective. You cannot consent others into your society. If someone withdraws, they do not have to be subject to the wrongs of their state. The non-aggression principle, self-defense, and the golden rule are much more valuable than politics in getting the world to work than are government. How can a majority inflict their opinions on a minority and claim they are right to do so? 50.00001% of people believe they can force the minority to participate in programs they view as either less helpful or even harmful. I have never been consented into the system because other people don't have the right to consent me. Only I can consent my will to others. Two wolves and a sheep vote on whats for dinner? No, two wrongs don't make a right. "You've been volunteered" is not a line that can be taken as anything but a joke.

As the founding fathers of the USA said, when the people find out they can vote to take each other's money, society will decay. Well, they shouldn't have allowed that to happen. They laid the foundation of sand for a collapse, that foundation design was emulated the world over, and now that foundation is collapsing. Yes, the whole world will collapse because its on a foundation of sand. Only when people understand that you need signed written consent to take other's property does society begin to become civilized.

If a government calls itself "Government Earth" come along and require America to join a global government because the majority of Earth decides the USA is outnumbered by people who volunteer them to join, is that legit? Lets say nobody in the USA consents to join government Earth, but everyone outside the USA consents them to join Government Earth.

Every good contract not only requires consent, but also has a way out at any given time. A way to cancel.

a reply to: fractal5

Great question and great thread.

Does the Government 'own' us at birth when we get our birth certificate? Is it when we get a social security card? We have to be able to eat and without a SS card it is nearly impossible to work or transact business.

I would love to read what others think on this subject as I have always found the idea of being 'owned' by our Government disgusting. I would LOVE to know how to withdraw my approval from a corrupt (see Hillary/Obama/Bush), murderous (ceaseless and pointless wars), bunch of Federal thugs (comply or else).

a reply to: fractal5

What makes a government legitimate, by the standards of western cultures at least, is that it is government by consent, given largely at the ballot box. Whomsoever receives the most votes, winning the election, is considered to be given consent to lead the country in whatever way and using whatever policies and ideological guidance they profess to during the campaign period.

That is why it is imperative that people only vote for candidates they believe in, because otherwise they give permission to evil people, to do evil things in their name, and have no real right of complaint, except under certain provisions of the constitution, provisions which are somewhat bloody ambiguous when it comes to codifying the precise method by which a civilian population might oust its leaders when they fail to perform as required.

In my country it is even more important that we vote according to principle, because we have no protections for actions which seek the removal of an ineffective or dangerous government, such as the one we have now.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: fractal5

What makes a government legitimate, by the standards of western cultures at least, is that it is government by consent, given largely at the ballot box. Whomsoever receives the most votes, winning the election, is considered to be given consent to lead the country in whatever way and using whatever policies and ideological guidance they profess to during the campaign period.

That is why it is imperative that people only vote for candidates they believe in, because otherwise they give permission to evil people, to do evil things in their name, and have no real right of complaint, except under certain provisions of the constitution, provisions which are somewhat bloody ambiguous when it comes to codifying the precise method by which a civilian population might oust its leaders when they fail to perform as required.

In my country it is even more important that we vote according to principle, because we have no protections for actions which seek the removal of an ineffective or dangerous government, such as the one we have now.

Your answer greatly conflicts with your answer given on the other thread, so I question that this is not a complete answer. Imagine this hypothetical scenario with one country consisting of 3 zones:
Country 1:
Zone A 2 people.
Zone B 2 people.
Zone C 2 people.

But there is also on the other half of the island Country 2 with one large zone.
Country 2:
Zone D 7 people.

Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C are all united under one country. Zone D is in another country entirely and again is on the other half of the island. Zone B conducts a vote to withdraw consent from the original country and form their own. Zone B votes 2 people of 2 people to withdraw and form a new independent government named "Country 3". Country 1 then tells zone B, "this won't be allowed if we vote not to allow it". So, Zone A and Zone C conduct a vote but nobody in zone B shows up because they don't acknowledge the authority the majority to enforce their rule upon a minority. The vote is 4 people voted to add the people in Zone B to their country and declare Country 3 to be "a scam, null and void of authority". So, which election is valid and which one is invalid?

Country 1 then holds a trial and finds that Country 3 does not exist and is a mere scam of the people of Zone B to escape taxes. When Country 2 learns of this, they decide that in order to prevent any future conflicts, they will hold a vote to merge all countries into one country and eliminate all zones. They declare a vote among both countries to be held in the capital city of Zone D. Everyone shows up to vote. Everyone in country 1 votes no, while everyone in country 2 votes yes. The final vote is 7 votes for yes to merge the two countries into one, and 6 votes for no to reject merging the countries into one.

You are the judge in these scenarios, what is the appropriate outcome for these votes?
1. Was country 3 a legit country in the first election?
2. Should country 2 be dissolved after the second election?

a reply to: fractal5

Response to first scenario:

That would depend on the elements of the documents which founded the nation comprised of zones A, B and C in the first place. If that document (signed either by monarch or other leadership in times gone by, considered legitimate at the time) holds that a segment of the nation has the right to leave the rest, if its residents vote for such a move, then zones A and C have no business interfering in the just application of the founding documents letter and intent.

However, if no such allowance exists, then the move cannot be supported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response to scenario 2:

In the case of Zone D wishing to merge with the other zones, to become one nation under one flag, that would only ever be acceptable in the following circumstance:

Zone D's population take a vote which tells their leaders to go for it, should other parties be agreeable. Zones A through C also take a vote, to see if they would be happy to accept Zone D's proposal. So, to clarify, the ballot paper in Zone D would read:

This is a referendum to establish whether or not the residents of Zone D would agree to merge their identity and nationality with that of Zones A through C.

Yes
No

In Zones A through C it would read:

This is a referendum to establish whether or not the residents of Zones A through C would be prepared to merge their identity and nationality with that of Zone D.

Yes
No.

In the event that the residents of Zone D voted yes in their election, and the residents of Zones A through C were also agreeable, then yes, country 2 should be dissolved, as Zone D is now a defacto part of country 1, and it serves no purpose to identify it as being separate, except possibly to make topographical and historical research somewhat easier.

In the event that Zone D were up for it by and large, but Zones A through C were not, the fact that Zone D has more individuals voting means nothing. The reason I say that, is because until they are all merged as a single nation together, the residents of Zone D can only speak for themselves, or have a say over their own fate, not the fate of other people, in other nations.

So for example, if Zones A through C had their election, and they voted four to six to keep things the same, the fact that all seven residents of another nation were looking forward to a change in circumstances is utterly irrelevant, because the ballot for Zones A through C holds for the nation they comprise, stands as a majority opinion in their nation, and so their leaders have no choice what so ever, but to refuse Zone D the right to meld with Zones A, B and C.

Consent. Through silence or otherwise.

And we have no shortage of that these days.

People are too concerned with their own personal problems and feelings to look beyond them.

a reply to: TrueBrit

While I'm in general agreement with your comments on the scenario where one country attempts to annex a smaller one (by population), I question why Zone B's majority vote can be considered null and void in any case at all in the scenario where a state within a country wants to become an independent country.

It would appear that you believe if Zone B is agreed to a rule stating that while they can consent, they can never withdraw their consent, that any majority vote by Zone B to form an independent government is then null and void? And furthermore, if all the people who offered their consent in the fist place to the contract are now dead, that the majority vote of Zone B is still null and void?

It would appear that America withdrew from Britain while the population of Britain was dramatically higher than that of America, which was one of its states at the time. I do believe the British colonies were at most a quarter of the population of the British empire. Was America committing a tax evasion scam that is morally wrong? It would appear you believe so based on your post.

Nothing. No government is "legit", so far as it consists of one person governing another. The only legitimate government is one man's rule over himself and his own will.

a reply to: TrueBritOr to put it more succinctly, all about the zones is a load of crap.
If zone A had a bigger army it would kick the sh** out of all the other zones and pull them in line behind them.
Don't believe me? Look what's happening in the US now. How many people have tried to usurp the system? Waco seems to come to mind. Forget about the religious rubbish, they wanted to run their own lives. But the good old government didn't want non of that so they kicked butt.
As for ousting a wrong government, the system is already there. You can vote them out. ie. a technical vote of no confidence.
This has already happened in the UK but has been distorted and vilified and will be vilified in this thread.
In 1974 the people brought down a government and forced a general election. Now you will hear "it was the nasty unions", they brought the government down. NO THEY DIDN'T. The unions were just the mechanism that got a very large amount of the electorate together to bring about the downfall.
And the reason that we cannot do that again. The successive governments hounded the unions virtually out of business to prevent that mechanism from ever working again. And you thought it was about Red Robbo and Scargill.
That is also why this government WILL NOT allow an inquiry into the Orgreave debacle because it has a certain womans dirty filthy fingerprints all over it.

a reply to: fractal5

Zone B is nothing like America though, is it. For a start, as you can clearly see from the fact that it is called Zone B, it is not a relatively newly held territory, as America was during its indpendence war.

Also, I had assumed that we were talking about a nation like the UK, where the individual towns and regions are not considered self ruled largely speaking, but ruled from the centre, with regional councils dispersing such government funds as are made available as they see fit. For example, London leaving the UK would be something the people of the nation would rightly go to the streets to prevent, since it is our capital and belongs to everyone from the northern most tip of Scotland, to the westernmost extent of Wales and Northern Ireland, to the Easternmost edge of England.

In the UK, there is one state. In America there are many, which is why I mentioned the founding documents and how they play into these things.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If Scotland votes to form an independent country from Britain, would that in your opinion require the consent of the UK? I don't know about any social contracts they have while I do know about America.

Its interesting you say London belongs to the people of the UK at large. That is to say, if you buy a piece of property in London you are merely renting or borrowing it from everyone else, not owning it, correct?

I think certainly a right to travel is substantial though. The idea of London closing its borders and now allowing people to enter certainly would be a morally questionable act. What if London declared independence without the UK but with an open-borders policy? Would that make a difference?

If I take what you are saying as consistent principle, I don't see how America could be a legit government in your eyes given it was just as much a part of the British Empire as London is to the UK now, no?

a reply to: fractal5

America fought Britain for its right to call itself whatever it liked, and won. Jobs a gooden.

If London fought the rest for its independence though, as the capital of our nation, it would be impossible to say the same. It is the capital of England and more broadly, the United Kingdom, and so it has no permission regardless of its status or the wishes of its residents, to split from the rest. It is ours. It is the property of the people and will never be anything else.

And with regard to Scotland, I am against independence for Scotland because I feel that splitting from the UK would be a horrid thing to do, mostly because most of us Brits have heritage there, and feel that us Celtic, Pictish, and other ancient tribes ancestors should stick together, not be sundered apart. It would be like having part of my birthright taken from me, to see them sod off on their own. That being said, if the people there vote for it, then I am not equal to the task of preventing it, nor do I consider it my right to do so.

ETA:

It must be said also, that there are things about this issue which you have left out from your model. If one of your Zones is being negatively influenced in terms of the quality of life of its inhabitants, to a greater degree than those of other zones, and if central government refuses over successive administrations to improve the situation and rectify it, then certain aspects of my take on things change. In the London example, there is no such case to answer, because London in general is affluent as all hell, has jobs aplenty going and is thriving largely speaking. Individual locations in it might not be, but that is the responsibility of government (based there I might add) not the rest of the country, and therefore cannot be held up as a reasonable argument for leaving the rest of the nation.

Scotland however has over the last forty years, been overlooked and underfunded repeatedly, mostly to keep its REAL labour supporters powerless and hopeless. While I would rather people there stood with the rest of the nation, to eventually take it back for the people in the streets, I could well understand their point of view in wishing for a different way of life. Not so much now of course, because things in Scotland are NOT so different than they are else where, and the people there have more in common than they realise with their southern brothers and sisters, when it comes to being left behind by government. We all are. Not just the north, but all of us. Our government is not something over which the people have immediate editorial control and it damned well ought to be. Something will have to be done.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: fractal5

America fought Britain for its right to call itself whatever it liked, and won. Jobs a gooden.

Okay, so America is a legit country in your book.

What if instead of fighting they held an election and the vote was to withdraw from the British empire?

a reply to: fractal5

I find it hard to accept that hypothetical, because such a vote would never have been held, since the ability to organise a ballot would have been something that only the British could have done, without interference. Since The Crown had no intention at the time of handing power to vote on the subject to the residents of America, it is not a possibility I consider reasonable or worth exploring.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: fractal5

I find it hard to accept that hypothetical, because such a vote would never have been held, since the ability to organise a ballot would have been something that only the British could have done, without interference. Since The Crown had no intention at the time of handing power to vote on the subject to the residents of America, it is not a possibility I consider reasonable or worth exploring.

Okay, either way you seem to have offered two scenarios in which you support a minority group withdrawing from the larger political body regardless of permission by the larger body, and presumably counting on permission of a majority of the withdrawing population. You have pointed out one scenario where you wouldn't support such a move (Scenario 1). It seems that your rules for right and wrong in these scenarios are much more subjective than objective, no?

a reply to: fractal5

What Makes A Government Legit?

From an individual level, your consent. Though, in reality this is not how it works. You as a child, having been brought to life in a certain country, you had no say in it. If it`s a democratic country than only 1 more than a half of population that went to vote, decided and consented for you.

As from the global perspective, it takes much more than that. You and your people can all declare independence as much as you like, supported with documents and everything else that justify such action but until you are globaly recognised by other countries as a sovereign independent country, it does not mean #. Therefore the legitimacy of governments come and go as the wind blows, usually in favour to the one who runs things, and to run things you have to have the best military and negotiating skills.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: fractal5

What Makes A Government Legit?

You and your people can all declare independence as much as you like, supported with documents and everything else that justify such action but until you are globaly recognised by other countries as a sovereign independent country

UN recognition in turn depends on the size of the supporting armies involved. So, the present day political system is a system of might makes right, same as it always has been.

I personally like the idea of Democracy, and I it cannot happen unless consent begins with the individual, not the collective.