Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consent is an agreement between two or more individuals who are free from duress and have the cognitive ability to do so. Obviously no man can agree to something when he has a gun to his head or he is in a coma. Surely even the statist grasps this even if it's only applied to dealings outside the government as they operate now.
Does this noncompliance when I do not consent, involve violence?
Does this noncompliance when I do not consent, involve violence?
No.
If you and I agree to form a contract and we are both free from duress (which includes the threat of violence) and we have the cognitive ability to do so then that is proper and legitimate consent.
That is why there is no such thing as consent when it comes to any interaction with the government...any involuntary government on earth. Their existence is predicated on the threat of force which automatically makes it illegitimate.
Once more, this doesn't even get to the fact that consent to contract is a product of rights being exercised. And only individuals have rights. A government has no right to enter into contract, to consent, or even exist (if it's involuntary which is what we are talking about).
Ask yourself this: where does the right of one man to rule over another come from? God? A government? A king? A document? A tradition?
States throughout history have used all of these anchors to cement their legitimacy...or claim to. If such a right existed, and it doesn't, surely all States would be using it uniformly.
A Free Press is a vital instrument in preventing a takeover by a tyrannical government. Right now I'm seeing that fundamental right under constant attack. When the Free Press goes away, the rest of your rights will follow.
How can it be called a free press when it has an agenda to report partial facts or out of context? How can it be a vital instrument when it is so misused?
As it is the left is happy because the bias is in their favor, but not so long ago many on the left would have had no issue is Obama shut Fox News down.
Apparently, you are unaware of the republican form of government, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, wherein the American people are "sovereigns without subjects," and the president is merely the highest ranking public SERVANT, one step down in status from the lowest American sovereign.
My friend, there is nothing that can be done. You would far sooner destroy the country than fix it. And then what?
"Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner
I wouldn't use the word "consent" here. I wouldn't even use "implicit consent".
When you are under duress, and contrary to the popular belief of statists who go along each day as if they are free and think nobody is under duress-you are, you cannot give consent of any kind.
It's the vast scope of the violations that create this paradigm. We've talked about this before in how mostly everyone lives their daily lives as anarchists yet when it comes to the government special rules suddenly apply.
In my previous post I mentioned how we need to start holding individuals responsible even if they are acting on behalf of the State when they do their dirty work. Well, that's what I meant anyway. It's something all of us are lazy on. We hit it hard when it comes to cops killing dogs after becoming "fearful for their lives" or arresting little old ladies for feeding stray cats but it needs to be done at all levels and more consistently. Sure, it's technically on behalf of the State but it is individuals who are doing the dirty work. When you do something immoral and illogical, as we all do, you are doing so because the State has the most power and will fine/cage/kill you at its discretion. But it takes an individual to carry out the order.
Perhaps I was using the phrase "implicit consent" based on my projection of how Leviathan sees my lack of active opposition to their tyranny. Often it is the case that I am accused of "going along with" something because I am not zealously opposing or resisting a thing.
Or perhaps I was venting self-doubt and feelings of personal guilt because I don't feel like I do oppose Leviathan as properly as I should, therefore I feel like I am implicitly consenting based on my own cowardice.
Either way, I stipulate to your points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
