PDA

View Full Version : Only 23% Say U.S. Government Has the "Consent of the Governed"




Matt Collins
09-25-2010, 03:35 PM
The Declaration of Independence famously proclaims that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

On July 12-13, respected pollsters Rasmussen Reports decided to see if that consent actually exists.

They asked 1,000 likely voters this question:

"The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Does the federal government today have the consent of the governed?"

The results (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=yrvogrcab&et=1103715111857&s=57420&e=001K53btfhGFS-Qf37STd43DiUsQK_-Va6fMzBFCqXORgJBzXl5tiw8saqFKHKzbMeDDaivs8oEHtnwDC z_1GtZWXATtA8ke-k7KXMs07G9_BUqYoDFyczhzddZW31Cnha3fE62Lvhfkm3Ol8oa PH8La7ynwXBlxiJEeq_G0kIC3QY2X3r3JYqPL3Jl-QAr_PgRWeEjAIK3XeIgOhkvMxvM1dPRp6_27N2EaFcoeFrzDnl QkA98SIfBcJ-n6NIYBPQznicgZsm9W3RWCQzOfuWaOw==) were... revolutionary.

Reports Rasmussen: "Just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure."

These figures are almost identical to responses to the same question last February.

In his recent book In Search of Self-Governance, pollster Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are "united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt and that neither major political party has the answers." He adds that "the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century."

The Declaration of Independence follows the phrase about "consent of the governed" with these words: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Kludge
09-25-2010, 03:37 PM
Believe it or not, this is actually up from 21% they got from a poll they did in February.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_gove rned

nate895
09-25-2010, 03:44 PM
Believe it or not, this is actually up from 21% they got from a poll they did in February.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_gove rned

That is within the margin of error.

BTW, this is not how you determine whether the government has the "consent of the governed." A government fails to achieve that when there is wanton disregard for its laws, so that the government cannot enforce them at all practically. This would be the case if, say, 20% of those eligible did not pay their taxes and talked about it openly without getting punished with extremely rare exception.

erowe1
09-25-2010, 03:48 PM
That is within the margin of error.

BTW, this is not how you determine whether the government has the "consent of the governed." A government fails to achieve that when there is wanton disregard for its laws, so that the government cannot enforce them at all practically. This would be the case if, say, 20% of those eligible did not pay their taxes and talked about it openly without getting punished with extremely rare exception.

How can any government that has to use threats of violence to make people pay for its services have consent of the governed to begin with?

Kludge
09-25-2010, 03:51 PM
this is not how you determine whether the government has the "consent of the governed." A government fails to achieve that when there is wanton disregard for its laws, so that the government cannot enforce them at all practically. This would be the case if, say, 20% of those eligible did not pay their taxes and talked about it openly without getting punished with extremely rare exception.

Although I strongly support tax resistance, I'm not sure if I agree with that. This is a little off from the intention of the poll, perhaps, but if the government only has a bit over 20% of its citizens consenting to being governed, then they are being oppressed (and are repressed, too, I would argue) into "supporting" their occupying government. I don't think it's reasonable to argue that because a citizenry is so fearful of government they pay the government's protection money that they are necessarily consenting to being governed.

nate895
09-25-2010, 04:00 PM
Both of you are confusing satisfaction with consent. Consent is merely non-resistance in a normal situation, and only being active support if you are in the process of changing the form of government. The people automatically "consent" if they do not disobey. This can be compared to a marriage: You consent to a marriage after the actual wedding if you do not take steps to dissolve it. In a similar manner, you consent to the government if you do not take steps to disobey it.

Edit: Only when the populous starts taking measures to resist, peacefully or violently, the government can you say that it is truly not consenting. This forms the basis of legitimacy. Yes, that means a fearful populace is "consenting," but you cannot keep a population fearful if you do not have wide enough support to maintain hegemony.

heavenlyboy34
09-25-2010, 04:07 PM
That is within the margin of error.

BTW, this is not how you determine whether the government has the "consent of the governed." A government fails to achieve that when there is wanton disregard for its laws, so that the government cannot enforce them at all practically. This would be the case if, say, 20% of those eligible did not pay their taxes and talked about it openly without getting punished with extremely rare exception.

Perhaps in your opinion, but when Jefferson wrote those words, he meant it in the literal sense-as only an individual can consent-groups are not capable of this. (if you take into consideration the rest of the DoI and Jefferson's politics, you'll come to the same conclusion)

Kludge
09-25-2010, 04:13 PM
Both of you are confusing satisfaction with consent. Consent is merely non-resistance in a normal situation, and only being active support if you are in the process of changing the form of government. The people automatically "consent" if they do not disobey. This can be compared to a marriage: You consent to a marriage after the actual wedding if you do not take steps to dissolve it. In a similar manner, you consent to the government if you do not take steps to disobey it.

Edit: Only when the populous starts taking measures to resist, peacefully or violently, the government can you say that it is truly not consenting. This forms the basis of legitimacy. Yes, that means a fearful populace is "consenting," but you cannot keep a population fearful if you do not have wide enough support to maintain hegemony.

So then if a rape victim does not resist, they are consenting?

erowe1
09-25-2010, 04:34 PM
Both of you are confusing satisfaction with consent. Consent is merely non-resistance in a normal situation, and only being active support if you are in the process of changing the form of government. The people automatically "consent" if they do not disobey. This can be compared to a marriage: You consent to a marriage after the actual wedding if you do not take steps to dissolve it. In a similar manner, you consent to the government if you do not take steps to disobey it.

Edit: Only when the populous starts taking measures to resist, peacefully or violently, the government can you say that it is truly not consenting. This forms the basis of legitimacy. Yes, that means a fearful populace is "consenting," but you cannot keep a population fearful if you do not have wide enough support to maintain hegemony.

So when the Mafia uses threats of lethal force to steal from store owners in their territory and calls it taxes, in exchange for "protection," which is a euphemism for "not ransacking your store," and the store owner goes along with that, since they don't want their store ransacked, is that store owner also giving the Mafia his consent for them to do that? And when the Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, would it then follow that the powers that the Mafia derives from that store owners cooperation (i.e. consent) would be just, at least as defined in the DOI?

By your definition of "consent," it is not only their just powers that governments derive from consent, but all their powers, both just and unjust.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-25-2010, 04:49 PM
Consent is basically another word for agreement. Do you agree to being governed by DC is exactly the same as do you consent to being governed by DC. Nate's definition is outside the orthodox view of what consent is defined as. I also doubt Jefferson when writing the DoI used Nate's definition.

nate895
09-25-2010, 05:00 PM
So then if a rape victim does not resist, they are consenting?

No. Rape is an active change in the situation. Both parties have to actively agree.


So when the Mafia uses threats of lethal force to steal from store owners in their territory and calls it taxes, in exchange for "protection," which is a euphemism for "not ransacking your store," and the store owner goes along with that, since they don't want their store ransacked, is that store owner also giving the Mafia his consent for them to do that? And when the Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, would it then follow that the powers that the Mafia derives from that store owners cooperation (i.e. consent) would be just, at least as defined in the DOI?

By your definition of "consent," it is not only their just powers that governments derive from consent, but all their powers, both just and unjust.

I am not necessarily saying that what the people consent is right and proper. I fundamentally disagree with the Declaration that the source of governmental authority is the consent of government anyway. Proper authority comes only from proper enforcement of justice. The governed could consent to all sorts of unjust laws, and could reject just laws.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-25-2010, 05:14 PM
No. Rape is an active change in the situation. Both parties have to actively agree.



I am not necessarily saying that what the people consent is right and proper. I fundamentally disagree with the Declaration that the source of governmental authority is the consent of government anyway. Proper authority comes only from proper enforcement of justice. The governed could consent to all sorts of unjust laws, and could reject just laws.

Actually, I agree with Jefferson & La Boetie. Jefferson derived this known fact from La Boetie (I also don't think you remember that the DoI was a secessionist document). The only way a Government can remain in power is to have consent. If no one consents to the Government then they have no power. You can see this in Quaker Pennsylvania before & during William Penn when they were anarchist and refused to acknowledge or obey any Government he tried to install.

What is proper justice? I know you are not a voluntaryist, so I am wondering what your definition is, and if you acknowledge that taxation is theft, or not.

Anti Federalist
09-25-2010, 05:15 PM
I withdrew my consent years ago.

nate895
09-25-2010, 05:22 PM
Actually, I agree with Jefferson & La Boetie. Jefferson derived this known fact from La Boetie (I also don't think you remember that the DoI was a secessionist document). The only way a Government can remain in power is to have consent. If no one consents to the Government then they have no power. You can see this in Quaker Pennsylvania before & during William Penn when they were anarchist and refused to acknowledge or obey any Government he tried to install.

What is proper justice? I know you are not an voluntaryist, so I am wondering what your definition is, and if you acknowledge that taxation is theft, or not.

I believe the Bible is proper basis for the standard of justice. The civil authority is meant to enforce laws associated with the second table of the Ten Commandments. While I have not investigated a Biblical tax in any detail, I would say that it would seem to me that (given the rest of Biblical teachings) that the civil authority could not demand more than church authorities, and that it should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to bear the sword against wrongdoers.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-25-2010, 05:28 PM
I believe the Bible is proper basis for the standard of justice. The civil authority is meant to enforce laws associated with the second table of the Ten Commandments. While I have not investigated a Biblical tax in any detail, I would say that it would seem to me that (given the rest of Biblical teachings) that the civil authority could not demand more than church authorities, and that it should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to bear the sword against wrongdoers.

This scares me. Imagine a nation of Theocrats (The poster) running around!

heavenlyboy34
09-25-2010, 06:10 PM
I believe the Bible is proper basis for the standard of justice. The civil authority is meant to enforce laws associated with the second table of the Ten Commandments. While I have not investigated a Biblical tax in any detail, I would say that it would seem to me that (given the rest of Biblical teachings) that the civil authority could not demand more than church authorities, and that it should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to bear the sword against wrongdoers.


The problem with this standard is its subjective nature. (The Tolstoyan interpretation is far superior-and more conducive to liberty-to the Orthodox interpretations that you tend to cite, FYI. Here (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Religions-Leo-Tolstoy-True-Religion.htm) is a good intro to the subject)

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-26-2010, 05:57 PM
Peaceful secession, state by state, is the key to restoring liberty. With the exception of working to elect Ron as president in 2012, focusing on taking back the federal government is largely a waste of time.

Additionally, in some states (such as California and New York) the secession of certain parts of the state from the rest may also be beneficial for those residents.

Even Abe Lincoln, before becoming the tyrannical president he was, said in January 1848 that "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Vessol
09-26-2010, 06:41 PM
YouTube - Libertarian Barbie, wonder if she comes a don't tread on me flag? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtxVBX0HLsM)

independence
09-26-2010, 09:42 PM
So then if a rape victim does not resist, they are consenting?

I'm thinking that if a girl (or guy) does not say "no" and throw up their hand when someone is attempting to have $ex with them then that is a passive behavior and can be taken as consent or just going along for the ride so to speak.

independence
09-26-2010, 09:46 PM
I believe the Bible is proper basis for the standard of justice. The civil authority is meant to enforce laws associated with the second table of the Ten Commandments. While I have not investigated a Biblical tax in any detail, I would say that it would seem to me that (given the rest of Biblical teachings) that the civil authority could not demand more than church authorities, and that it should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to bear the sword against wrongdoers.

Have to agree...the majority of society requires a "higher power" for self-government and the bible (mostly New Testament) has resulted in our (pre-progressive) society. Without God, people will resent another person/persons/gov't telling them what to do and get out of control and there will be much confusion.

heavenlyboy34
09-26-2010, 09:53 PM
I'm thinking that if a girl (or guy) does not say "no" and throw up their hand when someone is attempting to have $ex with them then that is a passive behavior and can be taken as consent or just going along for the ride so to speak.

So, you'd also be okay with doctors molesting/raping patients who are sedated? :confused::eek:

silverhandorder
09-26-2010, 09:57 PM
So, you'd also be okay with doctors molesting/raping patients who are sedated? :confused::eek:

While I do not agree with him this is not a fair comparison. A sedated patient is not given a chance to resist due to his condition.