• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you believe living in the US means you consent to be governed?

No, I don't think living in the US means you consent to be governed. Being born does not imply consent. And saying you can go somewhere else is disingenuous. No matter what country you got to there will be a government forcing its will upon you with the threat of violence.

And saying consent is implied because you use the services available to you is also BS. If you didn't use the services the government will STILL hold you accountable to its laws. So you might as well use them. If you throw me in prison against my will I am not a hypocrite if I go ahead and use the prison library or eat in the prison cafeteria.

You have to make the most of your situation, whether or not you consented to be in that situation.
 
shrubnose said:
Why do you waste your time worrying about this?

You'll never abolish the U.S. government and you don't plan on leaving the USA so you might as well accept reality and deal with it as it is. :roll:
Click to expand...

LIKE (button broke).

I agree...

What I find astounding is that there are those who actually deny an abundant amount of history that tells us how this nation became a nation - with it's beginnings built and the principles of a republic form of government that will exist by the consent of the governed. When I hear this stuff, its like the Holocaust deniers.

The frustration for many like Henrin is that they feel an incredible sense of powerlessness. And that might be because we do have a government that has learned that it has the ability to become self-will-run-riot - and exercises that ability in various ways at various times.

But despite the above...the hardcore reality is that if enough people can muster the organizational efforts, fortitude, and perseverance...yes our government can be altered by the will of the people. It's not likely in our lifetimes, but sooner or later people get sick and tired of being sick and tired and use the system laid out in our Constitution and change things.

Thanks, Shrub...
 
Henrin said:
As an anarchist and someone that does not consent to be governed by the US government I regularly hear people tell me that I consent to be governed because I haven’t taken it on myself to leave or because I use public roads, sidewalks, police, fire protection or benefit from military protection. What they fail to recognize is that when the government has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services and has made illegal all other possible avenues there is little choice but to use the services the government provides and be member of the governmental organization.

Sometimes what people like to say is that because you have a birth certificate or because you have decided to immigrate here you have consented to be governed, but what they fail to understand is that in neither case is it a valid establishment of consent since in the former case the agreement is made by your parents, and in the later case, you are coerced to become a citizen or face legal punishment. Furthermore, you can not simply leave and not join another government organization as the government you had no choice but to be member of won’t allow you to denounce your citizenship without you having membership from another governmental organization. Under such terms any future agreement with the new governmental organization is to be assumed to be made under distress and thus can not be seen as binding to the party that signed it.

Then of course we have much less thought through arguments, like, well, you’re party to the social contract, or it’s in our nature to form into groups.

In the case of the social contract the argument is that by joining a society you have consented to some set of common rules, and thus you are morally bound to obey them. There has been no contract in history known as the social contract and at no point has any terms of this contract been presented or any choice of agreement or disagreement been offered to anyone. Furthermore, people do no choose where they are born or what societies they are born into much like they don't choose who their families are or if they are going to be born with ten fingers and ten toes. What actually happens is that the government forces anyone in their area since birth to follow their rules and punishes them accordingly if they break them.

Finally we reach the last argument that states it is in our nature to form into groups and establish rules in which we are to follow. The only way this argument could be a valid establishment of consent is if it was done by agreement, but in truth it is just another way to make the social contract argument. It is stating much like the social contract argument that because you are part of what has been determined society you have agreed to the rules, and again like the social contract argument assumes this was done by choice, not things outside of your control and not consented to like being born into the society. What many times is argued by those that enjoy the argument is that because the rules were already established by those that agreed to them (the people didn’t agree to them in the US), that you too agree to them because you are part of the same society. It is of course an argument that is absurd on it’s face as a persons agreement is only their own and would die with them.

So I ask you, do you believe people consent to be governed by just living in the US?
Click to expand...

What type of anarchist are you?
 
Henrin said:
As an anarchist and someone that does not consent to be governed by the US government I regularly hear people tell me that I consent to be governed because I haven’t taken it on myself to leave or because I use public roads, sidewalks, police, fire protection or benefit from military protection. What they fail to recognize is that when the government has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services and has made illegal all other possible avenues there is little choice but to use the services the government provides and be member of the governmental organization.

Sometimes what people like to say is that because you have a birth certificate or because you have decided to immigrate here you have consented to be governed, but what they fail to understand is that in neither case is it a valid establishment of consent since in the former case the agreement is made by your parents, and in the later case, you are coerced to become a citizen or face legal punishment. Furthermore, you can not simply leave and not join another government organization as the government you had no choice but to be member of won’t allow you to denounce your citizenship without you having membership from another governmental organization. Under such terms any future agreement with the new governmental organization is to be assumed to be made under distress and thus can not be seen as binding to the party that signed it.

Then of course we have much less thought through arguments, like, well, you’re party to the social contract, or it’s in our nature to form into groups.

In the case of the social contract the argument is that by joining a society you have consented to some set of common rules, and thus you are morally bound to obey them. There has been no contract in history known as the social contract and at no point has any terms of this contract been presented or any choice of agreement or disagreement been offered to anyone. Furthermore, people do no choose where they are born or what societies they are born into much like they don't choose who their families are or if they are going to be born with ten fingers and ten toes. What actually happens is that the government forces anyone in their area since birth to follow their rules and punishes them accordingly if they break them.

Finally we reach the last argument that states it is in our nature to form into groups and establish rules in which we are to follow. The only way this argument could be a valid establishment of consent is if it was done by agreement, but in truth it is just another way to make the social contract argument. It is stating much like the social contract argument that because you are part of what has been determined society you have agreed to the rules, and again like the social contract argument assumes this was done by choice, not things outside of your control and not consented to like being born into the society. What many times is argued by those that enjoy the argument is that because the rules were already established by those that agreed to them (the people didn’t agree to them in the US), that you too agree to them because you are part of the same society. It is of course an argument that is absurd on it’s face as a persons agreement is only their own and would die with them.

So I ask you, do you believe people consent to be governed by just living in the US?
Click to expand...

Not as such, but I also don't consent to claims of private property when they deprive People of what should be the commons.
 
Henrin said:
For me and I imagine most anarchists it's about freedom and choice, not chaos. It is wise of me to play along to get along as spending the rest of my days in prison is hardly something that will do me any favors.
Click to expand...

You're not an anarchist as long as you believe you should be able to Call the cops to protect Your absolute property rights, no matter how much property you claim.
 
Paschendale said:
Yes, it is very clear that our founders didn't think much of women. Meanwhile, the right to liberty does not mean the right to take that liberty away from anyone else, nor does it mean you can have all your liberty here. If living under our government is unacceptable to you, you have the liberty to leave and go somewhere else. No one can or will ever enjoy perfect liberty. The reality of liberty includes compromise.
Click to expand...

Then you agree with me. Liberty does not include some "right of society" to enforce its will on free people. The individual has to respect other individuals who have formed groups, and vice versa. Society has to compromise.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
A person may renounce their US citizenship.
It's doable.
Click to expand...

Not workable though. You can't work, own property, go to college or open a bank account. It's also an entirely moot point since all stateless people are held accountable to the laws of the country they reside in and can and will be arrested and imprisoned by the government if they break the law.
 
RGacky3 said:
Not as such, but I also don't consent to claims of private property when they deprive People of what should be the commons.
Click to expand...

There is already a thread on the front page of this forum where you can have that debate. All I will say to it is that the claim people own anything beyond themselves at birth is a claim lacking all merit.
 
jonny5 said:
Then you agree with me. Liberty does not include some "right of society" to enforce its will on free people. The individual has to respect other individuals who have formed groups, and vice versa. Society has to compromise.
Click to expand...

I have yet to meet very many libertarians who were willing to compromise for everyone else as much as they expect society to compromise for themselves.
 
Paschendale said:
I have yet to meet very many libertarians who were willing to compromise for everyone else as much as they expect society to compromise for themselves.
Click to expand...

Not taking other peoples stuff by the use of government is such a horrible compromise for you to make.
 
Henrin said:
Not workable though. You can't work, own property, go to college or open a bank account.
Click to expand...
These are all things which are secured through a society of some sort.
If you wish to go w/o a society, then you go w/o a society.
Clearly there are options for someone who wishes to do w/o the social contract.
They may not be the options you wish they were, but they exist.
:shrug:

Henrin said:
It's also an entirely moot point since all stateless people are held accountable to the laws of the country they reside in and can and will be arrested and imprisoned by the government if they break the law.
Click to expand...
^That point is moot.^
People are almost always arrested against their will. It's not a service which was requested by the arrestee.

You have no contract w/ the society.
The contract that does exist between the people who consent and that society requires that certain actions happen when people behave in certain ways.
You would be a bystander who got caught up.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
These are all things which are secured through a society of some sort.
If you wish to go w/o a society, then you go w/o a society.
Clearly there are options for someone who wishes to do w/o the social contract.
They may not be the options you wish they were, but they exist.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

No, they're not. I can work, own property, go to college, and open a bank account without ever interacting with anyone other than the other party in the transaction. It's not enabled by government, but it is in fact restricted by government.
^That point is moot.^
People are almost always arrested against their will. It's not a service which was requested by the arrestee.

You have no contract w/ the society.
The contract that does exist between the people who consent and that society requires that certain actions happen when people behave in certain ways.
You would be a bystander who got caught up.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you are determining consent here. Those people that do in fact consent to the laws of the land and the police to enforce those laws may not consent to being arrested when it happens, but they definitely consent to the possibly of it happening.
 
Henrin said:
As an anarchist and someone that does not consent to be governed by the US government I regularly hear people tell me that I consent to be governed because I haven’t taken it on myself to leave or because I use public roads, sidewalks, police, fire protection or benefit from military protection. What they fail to recognize is that when the government has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services and has made illegal all other possible avenues there is little choice but to use the services the government provides and be member of the governmental organization.

Sometimes what people like to say is that because you have a birth certificate or because you have decided to immigrate here you have consented to be governed, but what they fail to understand is that in neither case is it a valid establishment of consent since in the former case the agreement is made by your parents, and in the later case, you are coerced to become a citizen or face legal punishment. Furthermore, you can not simply leave and not join another government organization as the government you had no choice but to be member of won’t allow you to denounce your citizenship without you having membership from another governmental organization. Under such terms any future agreement with the new governmental organization is to be assumed to be made under distress and thus can not be seen as binding to the party that signed it.

Then of course we have much less thought through arguments, like, well, you’re party to the social contract, or it’s in our nature to form into groups.

In the case of the social contract the argument is that by joining a society you have consented to some set of common rules, and thus you are morally bound to obey them. There has been no contract in history known as the social contract and at no point has any terms of this contract been presented or any choice of agreement or disagreement been offered to anyone. Furthermore, people do no choose where they are born or what societies they are born into much like they don't choose who their families are or if they are going to be born with ten fingers and ten toes. What actually happens is that the government forces anyone in their area since birth to follow their rules and punishes them accordingly if they break them.

Finally we reach the last argument that states it is in our nature to form into groups and establish rules in which we are to follow. The only way this argument could be a valid establishment of consent is if it was done by agreement, but in truth it is just another way to make the social contract argument. It is stating much like the social contract argument that because you are part of what has been determined society you have agreed to the rules, and again like the social contract argument assumes this was done by choice, not things outside of your control and not consented to like being born into the society. What many times is argued by those that enjoy the argument is that because the rules were already established by those that agreed to them (the people didn’t agree to them in the US), that you too agree to them because you are part of the same society. It is of course an argument that is absurd on it’s face as a persons agreement is only their own and would die with them.

So I ask you, do you believe people consent to be governed by just living in the US?
Click to expand...

If they're doing so peacefully, working in the system, participating in the system; yes then on some level you are giving your consent. You can try to remove it, but to do so would require removing the government and you'd need some amount of army for that. So if you can get enough people to remove consent, perchance.

However, if you're paying into the system, using the system, not fighting the system, you've essentially consented to the system.
 
Ikari said:
If they're doing so peacefully, working in the system, participating in the system; yes then on some level you are giving your consent. You can try to remove it, but to do so would require removing the government and you'd need some amount of army for that. So if you can get enough people to remove consent, perchance.

However, if you're paying into the system, using the system, not fighting the system, you've essentially consented to the system.
Click to expand...

That's bull****. I was not asked if I wanted to be a member of the system nor was I offered any other choices but to member of the system, so I take part in it because I don't have any other real choices in front of me. Sure, sure, I can become stateless, but you know, I like running my business and I like having a bank account, and I living on the land I do.

I'm also not interested in removing the government so I can personally benefit. People seem to enjoy the government and want it to control an ever growing part of their lives, so I say let them have the system they want, but if they would be so kind to leave me out of their idiocy, that would be great.
 
Paschendale said:
I have yet to meet very many libertarians who were willing to compromise for everyone else as much as they expect society to compromise for themselves.
Click to expand...

I dont think youve met very many libertarians, then.
 
Henrin said:
So I ask you, do you believe people consent to be governed by just living in the US?
Click to expand...

Your anarcho-capitalist alternative would mean neo-feudalism. There is far more liberty through democracy than there is through landlordism. Just ask any serf.
 
Geoist said:
Your anarcho-capitalist alternative would mean neo-feudalism. There is far more liberty through democracy than there is through landlordism. Just ask any serf.
Click to expand...

That's just a slur used against anarcho-capitalists. There is no such thing as neo-feudalism or anyone that believes in it.
 
Henrin said:
That's bull****. I was not asked if I wanted to be a member of the system nor was I offered any other choices but to member of the system, so I take part in it because I don't have any other real choices in front of me. Sure, sure, I can become stateless, but you know, I like running my business and I like having a bank account, and I living on the land I do.

I'm also not interested in removing the government so I can personally benefit. People seem to enjoy the government and want it to control an ever growing part of their lives, so I say let them have the system they want, but if they would be so kind to leave me out of their idiocy, that would be great.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to live in the country and enjoy the benefits of the civilization and society that has evolved within, then you gotta pay for it and you are consenting to it.
 
Ikari said:
Well if you want to live in the country and enjoy the benefits of the civilization and society that has evolved within, then you gotta pay for it and you are consenting to it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with both of those points. I have no obligation to pay for something that was given to me and I can't avoid taking and being part of society does not mean that I consent to their decisions.
 
Henrin said:
I disagree with both of those points. I have no obligation to pay for something that was given to me and I can't avoid taking and being part of society does not mean that I consent to their decisions.
Click to expand...

Then don't pay.
 
Henrin said:
Then I go to prison and use government services from there.
Click to expand...

But you won't have to pay and you'll get shelter and food.

Or, you can just pay for the crap you're using and understand the benefits you get by living in America even with our crappy government as opposed to having been born in some place in Africa.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Ikari said:
But you won't have to pay and you'll get shelter and food.

Or, you can just pay for the crap you're using and understand the benefits you get by living in America even with our crappy government as opposed to having been born in some place in Africa.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

The idea that you can just run around providing people services they didn't ask for and then demand them to pay you is something a young boy would think of when he wants to make some money mowing peoples lawns. What he will find out and what the government damn well should find out is that no one has any obligation to pay you when they didn't agree for you do anything for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom