Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Consensual Government?

There is nothing truly consensual about government. It is always and everywhere based on force, intimidation, and violence. When the founding generation formed a confederacy with the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution, it was at least a voluntary union of the states. The citizens of each state understood that their state, and all others, was free and independent and sovereign. They were free to participate in the union, or not.


~Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State

Whenever I start pointing out the reasons that elected government is a bad thing, or even suggest limiting the franchise, people almost invariably recite the phrase, "the consent of the governed".

My usual retort is that I didn't consent to be governed by people chosen by college students and atheists.

That retort really ought to demonstrate the fallacy of the entire argument. Democrats don't consent to be governed by Republicans who win elections, or vice versa. None of us consent to the rules of the FDA, DMV, EPA, or dozens of other power-mad government agencies, though we follow them if we wish to stay out of prison.

There is no such thing as the consent of the governed, unless you count "not blowing up Capitol Hill" as "consent". Government is about force. The talk about "the consent of the governed" is rhetoric intended to make the subjects of a democracy feel as if they are not sheep being shorn until time for the barbecue. Time for adherents of elected government to come up with a better argument.

5 comments:

MadMonarchist said...

Reminds me of a famous quote by the liberal philosophe Voltaire, regarding democracy. He said he preferred to live under the paw of a lion than the teeth of a million rats that were his fellow citizens.

ZAROVE said...

Indeed. Voltaire was always an unusual sort of hinker. He was't really a Liberal, nor as he as Hostile to beleif in God as Reusseu or other Enlightenment thinkers. His own views he kept to himself on God's existance, and to this day there is debate, though the popular perception is of him as an Atheist. (He was likly a Deist.)


That said, I doublt, my dear Moshea, that the argument of the concent of the Governed shall end even if you note that it is flawed. The reason is because it is the whole point of modern Democratic theory, and it is the reason people tend to beleive in it. That, and peole tend to repeat arguments that they are taught regardless of if thy have been challenged. ( On that note, I have debated Atheists who constantly tell me o one has ever killed in the name of Ahtiesm, and if pointe dout that the Soviets did insisted this was done "For politics, not Athism", which is daft. Do they think the Crusdes were "Killing in the name of THeism"? and how do you claim it snot killing in the name of Athiesm when peopel who beleive din God, be they Christains, Muslims, or Jews, were rounde dup and shot simly beause they weren't Atheists and refused ot give uo beleif in God?)

The fact is, most people do not think logically, they think emotionally. Most people also do not like to think beyond the narrative they were taught. Democracy in our day and age is simply an unquestionable dogma that w adhere to, something hat is legitimat ein and of itself, and in fact the only legitimate form of Governent.

Indeed, the very word 'democracy', along with other words roote din it like 'democratic' are used as synonyms for proper, right govenrment, and freedom. Peopel don't wuesiton it. Its jist known that Democracy is th eonly valid, true form of Government.

And it is th eonly valid form of Govenrment that allows us to be free, because we the peopel choose our Governign officials. If we do not like our leaders, we can vote htme out for those we do like.

Never midn that "We the people" are a collection of people, and nt all of us vote for the same bloke, its as unthouth of as the fact that most Dictators in history have been elected or been the result of some populace uprising, rather than beign Monarchs. We just know an uneelcted King woudl be a tyrant whereas an eelected official is somehow our servant and doe sou bidding. We are free because we vote for the Govenment we like and surly peopel woudln't vote ofr tyranny would they? Neve rmidn that they voted for Hitler, that was a fluke! He desotryed Democracy anyway!

In truth we do not have Govenrment by concent of the Governed. We have Govenrment by popularity contest, which in turn leads to politicians manipulating the population in order to secure votes and thus have a "Legitimate mandae" to do whatever they like.

Why do you think ther eis such a race to control the shcools? Wy do yu htink men in Republics want to dominate the media? THey want ot shape perception, and do so by carefully framing the topics and by so doing contorlign how we discuss htem, and thus how we think fo them, how we feel about them, and thereby getting votes whether its in our benefit or not.

ZAROVE said...

Its all just madness, and there is no freedom to it. Indeed, America allowed the states to participat eint he Union or not... righ tup until the SOuth decided to walk away, and then their free and sovieright status dissapeared.

I find the Civil War a particular Hypocracy. When discusing it with a friend of mine, I told her the Union had no right to force the SOuthern States to be part of them, and she said "Yes it did. " When asked why the states had no right to seceed she said "America doens't work that way". I then remidned her that Ameica was founed that way, and that the Revolutionary War which xhe was so proud of, and beleives was the right thign to do to free America form the evils of British rule, as itself a Secessionist movement. Why was the Revolution justifiable and the righ thting to do, when the Civil War was wrong? And in light of the Revolution, why should the SOuthern States be denied their own right?

In other words, the SOuthern Sttes did exaclty the same thing as the 13 origional Colonies. Why, then, do we beleive that they wer eint he wrong? Oh thats rightm, because they lost.

Its really just simplistic gibberish.

ZAROVE said...

Its all just madness, and there is no freedom to it. Indeed, America allowed the states to participat eint he Union or not... righ tup until the SOuth decided to walk away, and then their free and sovieright status dissapeared.

I find the Civil War a particular Hypocracy. When discusing it with a friend of mine, I told her the Union had no right to force the SOuthern States to be part of them, and she said "Yes it did. " When asked why the states had no right to seceed she said "America doens't work that way". I then remidned her that Ameica was founed that way, and that the Revolutionary War which xhe was so proud of, and beleives was the right thign to do to free America form the evils of British rule, as itself a Secessionist movement. Why was the Revolution justifiable and the righ thting to do, when the Civil War was wrong? And in light of the Revolution, why should the SOuthern States be denied their own right?

In other words, the SOuthern Sttes did exaclty the same thing as the 13 origional Colonies. Why, then, do we beleive that they wer eint he wrong? Oh thats rightm, because they lost.

Its really just simplistic gibberish.

Reactionary Lizard said...

Very incisive. Reminds me of Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism. As you point out, liberalism is the only ideology that pretends it is a depoliticalisation, but in fact every ideology always entails a political element, and is therefore necessarily authoritarian. Liberalism's innovation is not to escape the political, but to hypocritically pretend to deny it.