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.
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
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.