Under what individual authority does government exist?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
H R Puff N Stuff said:
if your from the east US the revolt,the midwest the louisiana purchase,the west manifest destiny you do remember jr high history assuming your from the US
Click to expand...
I am familiar with the history of conquest and bloodshed of the USA. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my questioning, but your answer is somewhat revealing.

The "consent" isn't actual consent of the persons encompassed, it is a "consent" derived from force, which you indicated above.
Of course that kind of "consent" is not actual consent is it?

Thanks for replying.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
So RobRoy is asking what monarch allows democracy to exist?
Such strange questions...such smelly fur.
Click to expand...
No that is not the question sir, did you go to Uncle Bucks school of confusion creation?

I am asking which INDIVIDUALS gave their consent, since consent in the real sense of the word is used mostly as an individual thing and not something others can give or assume for the individual.



Thank you for mentioning the smell I will send myself off for cleaning at London Fogs laundromat. My apologies.

Here, for the time being use this....

 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Since when have you argued forced coercion can be either offensive or defensive? That claim is also quite absurd, as you put it.

By your definition, one can infer that the government is defensively coercion people to get along. They are reacting to a series of actions, which by definition is, defensive.

No such thing as a "truly free market", but I think that is besides the point. A free market is an economic construct, where your claim of government coercion is a social ideology. Essentially you are arguing two different points.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure where to begin unraveling what you just drooled out.

Why don't we just pretend you were having a bad day and that you didn't reveal your absurdity as well as you did.

You're welcome.


Oh fuck it, if you whine loud enough, I might come back and dismantle your utterance....maybe.
 
Christianiadelic

Christianiadelic

Well-Known Member
I consider this a question of the legitimacy of the authority of the State over the Individual. And as a social contract between the two (for more on this, read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract' or the contemporary John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice'. Of course, Adam Smith had a lot of thought on this in 'The Wealth of Nations'). In short, a social contract implies "[...] that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights" (Wiki).

To make sure that government will not abuse it's priviliges, the power of government is divided into three branches - the separation of powers - "each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary" (Wiki). Furthermore, the institutions of democracy constantly review and renew the social contract so as to have it reflect the wishes and interests of the electorate.

But then money happened... ;)
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Christianiadelic said:
I consider this a question of the legitimacy of the authority of the State over the Individual. And as a social contract between the two (for more on this, read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract' or the contemporary John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice'. Of course, Adam Smith had a lot of thought on this in 'The Wealth of Nations'). In short, a social contract implies "[...] that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights" (Wiki).

To make sure that government will not abuse it's priviliges, the power of government is divided into three branches - the separation of powers - "each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary" (Wiki). Furthermore, the institutions of democracy constantly review and renew the social contract so as to have it reflect the wishes and interests of the electorate.

But then money happened... ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding on topic. Have you ever considered Lysander Spooners view on consent, or read any of his essays?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm not even sure where to begin unraveling what you just drooled out.

Why don't we just pretend you were having a bad day and that you didn't reveal your absurdity as well as you did.

You're welcome.


Oh fuck it, if you whine loud enough, I might come back and dismantle your utterance....maybe.
Click to expand...
I was simply speaking like you. Mirrors hurt don't they?
 
NewtoMJ

NewtoMJ

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Oh, like gang rape?
Click to expand...
No, because in this case you haven't chose to fight back. Consent is defined as permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. There is nothing In the standard definition that implies consent being voluntary. Legally, yes, consent must be given voluntarily of a sound mind. However, if you have chosen not to consent to government, you can't be afforded the legal protection that very government is providing. Which means, consent no longer has to be voluntarily given, it can be taken by threat of force because you are agreeing to consent, less you face the consequences of not consenting.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
H R Puff N Stuff said:
they have jurisdiction because you are in that location in wich they have jurisdiction move to another local and they dont have jurisdiction.jurisdiction has more to do with location than the person a person can travel thru many jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
They have the right to rule over you because of your location? Some one else has the right to rule over you because your in a different location? Like the kings of old and their serfs? Your rational smacks of supporting slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top