• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The Myth of Consent


GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Oct 15, 2012

In the modern world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of a perceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property). Not wanting to admit that, and not wanting to condone what amounts to slavery,those who believe in “authority” are trained to memorize and repeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. One example of this is the phrase “consent" of the governed.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another.Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else.

That is simply not what “consent” means. It defies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority, That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let youforcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no“governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another, even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If youwant to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent.To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the“country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

The believers in “government” never explain how it is that a few politicians could have acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of square miles of land, where other people were already living, as their territory, to rule and exploit as they see fit. It would be no different from a lunatic saying, “I hereby declare North America to be my rightful domain, so anyone living here has to do whatever I say, If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

There is also a practical problem with the “obey or get out” attitude, which is that getting out would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation, a different “country.” The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave, with the only choice being which master to live under.This completely rules out actual freedom. More to the point, that is not what “consent” means.

The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country – the notion that it can be a “crime” for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into another – implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.

Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.TMDS


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right
The following is what the Supreme Court had to say about the Declaration of Independence.
The original words of the Declaration of Independence are in RED.

We hold these truths to be self-evident – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement –

that all men are endowed – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but –

by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime –

and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these – not grant them, but secure them –

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let (Editor’s Note: To let is to grant a charter or contract to a person or group who has made a proposal) or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.
Butcher’s Union Slaughterhouse and Livestock Company v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company Argued April 9-10, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 – U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746.