Consent of the governed - did you give yours?

[suijurisfreeman]

I was invited to join this board, so here goes.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among thses are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This document was the 13 American Colonies justification to the world as to why they were no longer under the "lawful" authority of England. The fundamental principle for the establishment of this "new government" was government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Does the government of the united States of America have the explicit consent of each and every individual in this country today? Did they have the consent of each and every individual in 1776? Have you given your explicit consent to be governed? If so, exactly what did you consent to? If not, are you allowing yourself to be governed and why?

In my opinion, a discussion of this most fundamental principle is necessary to under freedom/liberty. Winston Ward Johnson, a Freeman, Sui Juris

[castille]

If you don't want to be governed by the US government, move to another country.


That was easy.

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
If you don't want to be governed by the US government, move to another country.


That was easy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yes that was easy to type your response, but I don't think that you addressed the question. Why is it so difficult to get people to discuss this most basic, fundamental principle that this country was founded on? As I posted, the Colonies justification for claiming that they were no longer under the "lawful" authority of England included the statement that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." If this fundamental principle was good enough to help found the united States of America, why does it appear to have absolutely no revelance today? "Move to another country" doesn't address my question.

[castille]

If everyone had their say on how the US would be run....the US wouldn't be run at all!

280 million different opinions means no decisions will be made. People will argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
If everyone had their say on how the US would be run....the US wouldn't be run at all!

280 million different opinions means no decisions will be made. People will argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You still have not addressed my question. The question wasn't "if everyone had their say on how the US would be run", how could it run at all? For the US government to have "just powers", is the consent of the governed necessary as is stated in the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America?
Wasn't this the foundation upon which this country was founded? Does this concept mean anything to you? Please in your next response address my question.

[Man Against Time]

I think the problem is that you are just taking their word for it. Ever wonder what makes the declaration of independence conclude that govt's derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed? I have, and I must say, this is a very shaky leap of faith. "It is only in the reign of quantity that the will of the majority can even claim to be taken into consideration at all."
Even though the Founding Fathers believed in consent of the Governed, and even though they said it, they did not mean it as you mean it; they were addressing the endorsement of the nobility, not the consent of the governed, that is different.

I never gave consent, neither did anyone else I know. In fact everyone I have ever befriended is fundamentally unsatisfied with the order of things. The reason we dont see any contradiction between this atitude and modern americanism is, we understand that it was for dupes from the beginning, and do not care.

[suijurisfreeman]

Man Against Time,
Are you actually saying that the "founding fathers" didn't mean what they wrote?
Were they merely trying to transfer the "power" from King George (actually Parliament) to themselves? Do you mean that the phrase "all political power is inherent in the people" that I find in many of the State Constitutions isn't really true? I'm shocked! I'm devastated! If it was fraud from the beginning, why would anyone wish to participate in fraud?

[Garath331]

ok, let it be known from this day forth that, in exchagne for all the rights protected and safty given by the United States, suijurisfreeman is now free and is no longer giving his concent to the goverment.

(EG, you may now kill him and suffer no legal repercussions)

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Garath331,)
ok, let it be known from this day forth that, in exchagne for all the rights protected and safty given by the United States, suijurisfreeman is now free and is no longer giving his concent to the goverment.

(EG, you may now kill him and suffer no legal repercussions)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Garath331, I made that declaration back on June 4, 1993 as a matter of public record. Since I am not a "member of the body politic", I claim absolutely no protection from the body politic. But then that's why I "bear arms" in my own defence - I assume the responsibility for my own safety. Have you ever read the writings of John Locke or Lysander Spooner? How else can a Human Being be lawfully governed unless by his/her own consent?

[Simkin78]

By accepting the aid and protection of the us government and by choosing to live within its borders, I have also chose to abide by the way they run things.... or at least to work within the system of governance established to affect change. Choosing to live here gives your consent once you come of age.

I understand where you are coming from suijurisfreeman, however you seem not to understand that most of the people in this country give their consent everyday for the way things are run, and unless everyone decides to live as you do it will not change.

So until that time, I will continue to work within the system to affect whatever changes I can in the country I have chosen to live in.

[suijurisfreeman]

Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 402, CONSENT: "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord.
Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise ofsufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.
Consent supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.
"Consent" is an active acquiescence as distinguished from "assent", meaning a silent acquiescence. "Consent" means an active circumstanceof concurrence; "assent" is a passive act of concurrence before another does the act charged.
"Consent" is sometimes synonymous merely with "waiver". As used in the law of rape "consent" means consent of the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent.
There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent.

[suijurisfreeman]

Kentucky's Bill of Rights, 1891, Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights .... Section 2: Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. Section 26: To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

Alabama's Declaration of Rights (Article I of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama), Section 2: "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient." Section 35: "that the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."
"Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent."

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."
"Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

right on man!

keep your freedom... keep your guns...

but beware the looney left is coming to enslave you into their commune...

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)

For the US government to have "just powers", is the consent of the governed necessary as is stated in the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America?
Wasn't this the foundation upon which this country was founded?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


So what you mean is, everyone who is born must give their consent before the US government can rule?

This means every time somebody is born, we'd change governments.


19/12/2003, 12:12AM: New US President George Bush!
19/12/2003, 12:13AM: New US President Joseph LeGrange!
19/12/2003, 12:13AM: etc etc....

[suijurisfreeman]

castille,
Unless I'm mistaken, I've made my point cyrstal clear. But just in case I haven't let me quote John Locke again. "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, and independent. no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent."

This is what I believe and practice, until or unless I consent to be governed, absolutely no individual or "government" has the moral, lawful authority to subject me to their governance - period! I believe and practice a lifestyle that I term individualist-anarchism, a lack of governmental control over the Human Being known as Winston Ward Johnson.

[Lava]

hi


> Unless I'm mistaken, I've made my point cyrstal clear.

I think so. But no-one has shown understanding of it yet as far as I can tell.



> This is what I believe and practice, until or unless I consent to be governed, absolutely no individual or "government" has the moral, lawful authority to subject me to their governance - period!

I guess it depends how you define 'lawful'...

Being within the law; allowed by law
Obeying the law; law-abiding

Now, governing you without your consent is within the law, therefore it is lawful.

The next question is where does the law come from? And the answer is simple, each law comes from whoever has the power to make that law or rule.

Your government has power over you because it wants to and is able to. Its as simple as that in reality. The rhetoric used to justify it gets poeple's support, and thus gives it power. The morality behind it might be wonderful, diabolical, or mediocre, either way, but it is not morality that determines who has power and what laws/rules they pass using that power.



By the way... some things are obviously wrong here...

> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

obviously not true

> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among thses are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

obviously not true. Its nice when we grant each other these rights of course.


> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I'm going to say that the majority do consent to goverment. Yes we can all grumble, but at the end of the day only a small minority wants anarchy, and sees the restrictions in place as on the whole better than being ungoverned.

Of course how well theyve considered the question is another thing, and I'm sure for some its assent, for some consent, for some refusal to do either of those, and for some something between.


Regards, Lava!

i am willing and eager to organize for the purpose of creating a better society ad protecting things i value. however, the nature of this government is not my idea of the best way to achieve and maintain these goals.

[Leopard]

Mr. Suijurisfreeman:

Nice post! I am a lib with AnCap tendencies so we have alot in common - tho I do not know why you use the constitution as a reference as naturally conflicts with being an 'individual anarchist'. Both the Declaration and the Constitution were written be a VERY small and select group of men WITHOUT full consent of every person residing in the 13 colonies. So, by definition, 'the consent of the governed' was and is a falsehood. As another pointed out, the term 'inalienable rights' is also not a natural fact and in fact is a creation of and for man. The 'creator' endowed us with flesh and blood, a mind to make reason with, and abilities to choose and learn. We have ALWAYS had the ability to define 'rights' and humans have done so in differing ways throughout history - but they were NEVER divinely granted as the declaration states. They were mostly deists anyways.

So, no, I didn't give my consent. The people of the colonies didn't either. And I recognize only the power of the state to make my life miserable if I don't follow the rulse of its game for as long as they are backed by extreme force. I will continue to disrupt its control over my life though, all the while explaining to folks the virtues and benefits of REAL freedom instead of servitude.

michael