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.
The Framers imposed upon landless citizens a Constitution in which they had no representation. How exactly did the landless consent to be governed?
They didn't. Just like so many people today are governed, working, struggling, becoming rich or poor, under circumstances that were not theirs to choose. Not all that much different from how people managed before there was government and society. Over time, however, those who did consent to an approach that might work better did so. Like The Framers in America, and enough people saw it was good, and so it was so. Nevertheless, still after a long time since the Constitution was written, people are governed without their personal consent. Slavery a perfect example. However, slavery was later abolished because enough people consented that slavery was not a good thing, and those who did consent to an approach that might work better did so. Like Lincoln and the Republicans, and enough people saw it was good, and so it was so...
"Consent of the governed" means those who live where there is the law and order established by those governing either consent and abide by the rules established by those who govern, or if they do not, they face the consequences of doing otherwise. Not all that much different from how the laws of nature work, whether we consent or not. Just that in the first case, we have Man getting involved in some of this law making as well.
By choosing to stay, They could have returned to there home country's or packed up and headed to the frontier.
The same could be said for today, your free to leave.
bill
Not really. You are free to leave with stipulations.
If one "leaves" they must have a place to go.
For a US citizen to immigrate, pretty much anyplace upon planet Earth, you must have an invitation from where ever you wish to go. That typically occurs if you have a skill in demand, or a butt load of dollars to deposit into one of their banks. (In other words, they want to know you can support yourself, and do not become a burden on their citizens)
Only the USA allows anyone to just crawl over the border, and have it's citizens provide them with a free living, medical care, etc. etc. etc.
When did those that consent to be governed, consent to take care of the world, on their dime?
What "frontier" do you speak of? I've heard Putin will give anyone an acre of land to homestead in the middle of Siberia. If things keep heading the way they are, that might sound appealing to some, before long.
Not really. You are free to leave with stipulations.
If one "leaves" they must have a place to go.
For a US citizen to immigrate, pretty much anyplace upon planet Earth, you must have an invitation from where ever you wish to go. That typically occurs if you have a skill in demand, or a butt load of dollars to deposit into one of their banks. (In other words, they want to know you can support yourself, and do not become a burden on their citizens)
Only the USA allows anyone to just crawl over the border, and have it's citizens provide them with a free living, medical care, etc. etc. etc.
When did those that consent to be governed, consent to take care of the world, on their dime?
What "frontier" do you speak of? I've heard Putin will give anyone an acre of land to homestead in the middle of Siberia. If things keep heading the way they are, that might sound appealing to some, before long.
CN
I completely agree. At the same time, the people who hate everything America has ever been and want to change it and hate the historical majority demographics of America should leave. Really they should be thrown out lol.
The Framers imposed upon landless citizens a Constitution in which they had no representation. How exactly did the landless consent to be governed?
"The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867.
Everyone knows that Americans don't actually give their consent to be governed. Our government merely pretends to have consent, by giving people the illusion of choice. In which the predominant mode in which people vote, is to choose the "lesser of two evils".
To the extent that people do vote, it is used primarily as a tool of self-defense. Because honestly, what other choice do they have?
Quote:
"Voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own.
In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former.
His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867.
Furthermore, there is this pretension that this government even owns this land in the first place. And that if you do not agree with the government, that you should leave their property.
This statement is obviously absurd. Where exactly did this government get this land in the first place? Was this land not stolen by force? Or merely purchased from other thieves(usually itself through compulsion)?
To imagine that this government is the legitimate owner of any land at all, is complete nonsense. The only right this government has to any land, derives only from its willingness to hold it by force, and to kill, or otherwise dispose of anyone who tries to take it away. Regardless of the righteousness of their claim.
Quote:
"(Our government) does indeed pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, on general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867
The only reason people believe this government is legitimate, is because they have been told that over and over their entire lives, by the same people who want to use it to rule over them. Or simply, because they see in government a tool to serve their own interests.
Quote:
"The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867.
If you think government is good, fine. But only a moron would think that any government on this Earth is based on the consent of the governed.
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.
