Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Consent of the governed and classic liberalism (Read 1303 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #10 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 5:28pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:57pm:
Yes, that's what I said, it's possible for the consent of the people to lead to horribly unconstitutional acts by the government. Tyranny even.

The essential point is that it's the constitutionally described system of government that was consented to in the first place. None of it on the national level even existed when the Constitution was ratified. The American people consented to be governed by the type of government that the Constitution created. The various State governments also consented to be part of the system described by the Constitution. Many Royalists didn't, so they went to Canada or some other British colony or back to England.


Of course they can.  No shit.  So when I said consent of the governed was the basis of legitimate government in classic liberalism, you heard that consent of the governed was a magic elixir that solves all problems in government and makes our leaders kind and benevolent people?

It's fine if you want to believe that because your great, great, great, great grandfather consented to be governed by the United States that's applicable to you, but that isn't classic liberal.  So stop calling yourself that, you aren't a classic liberal and arguing against classic liberalism doesn't make you one, duh
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #11 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:08pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 5:28pm:
Of course they can.  No shit.  So when I said consent of the governed was the basis of legitimate government in classic liberalism, you heard that consent of the governed was a magic elixir that solves all problems in government and makes our leaders kind and benevolent people?

No, I just thought that what the people of America consented to, in fine republican fashion, was the system of government that was described in the Constitution. Not everybody consented to it. It wasn't done democratically. Some of the representatives were chosen democratically... Maybe.

Not even all of the States had to ratify the Constitution before it became effective on them anyway.

Obviously tyrannical from the beginning you say? France did it better by being more democratic and egalitarian? Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #12 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:18pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 5:28pm:
So when I said consent of the governed was the basis of legitimate government in classic liberalism...
I basically asked how that consent would be determined, in your mind. I already knew how it was done historically in America.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my questioning. I'm sometime obtuse and abstruse... (Often just for fun!)

So, If the legitimacy of a government depends on the consent of the governed, how should that consent be obtained and determined? Clear enough? If you don't think a republican form of government with democratically elected representatives is good enough, propose something better. Thank you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5266
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #13 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:02am
Print Post  
Vexer wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:25am:
"The Opposition"; you are of course referring to Corporations, who receive 300% more government handouts than all social security programs combined.

You're right, those corporate leechers should pay their own way, and not rely on their livelihoods from the tax dollars of people working in factories or McDonalds.


This is not what I mean at all. I simply mean no one may ever be deprived of a voice.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #14 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 8:22am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 9:52am:
Here's another way for you to see it, Jeff.  Slavery is just a red herring for you in this.  If there were no slaves, you still would have supported the Union conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.  So cut the slave bull.  It had nothing to do with Lincoln's tyranny and it had nothing to do with your support for Lincoln's tyranny.

In a previous discussion on this forum, I stated that I thought it would have probably been better to let the slave states leave the Union. There is no way of knowing how that would have turned out. Americans were fighting each other over slavery in Kansas and Missouri prior to the Civil war.

It seems obvious to me that the slave state governments understood that if they lost the election, no new slave states would be admitted to the Union and it would only be a matter of time before there were enough free states to amend the Constitution and make slavery illegal (as most civilized nations had already done.)

The only hope for slave states was to leave the Union and try to recruit new slave states from U.S. Territories. That would have guaranteed that the fighting in the Territories would have continued and probably escalated whether the U.S. and the C.S. would have declared war on each other or not.

Did the U.S. government have an obligation to prevent citizens from warring against each other in the Territories? Yes.

Was leaving the Union a preemptive action to attempt to preserve slavery in America? Again yes.

What happened was that the slave states, who's governments had consented to be a part of the Constitutional system of government, decided to break their agreement in order to preserve slavery. They left before slavery had been outlawed, but preserving slavery was the reason they left. If they had not been keeping humans in bondage, buying and selling and breeding them, they would have had no reason to leave the Union. They left before Lincoln was President. War over slavery had already begun in Kansas and Missouri, and it would have continued and escalated. Congress declared war after South Carolina attacked a U.S. military base... You say this makes Lincoln a tyrant? The governments of the slave states were tyrants. They enforced 'laws' that held large portions of their populations in slavery and they left the Union specifically because they believed that was they only way they would be able to continue their tyranny.

No person held as a slave ever consented to be governed by a Master or by the 'laws' enforcing slavery.

As to the issue of states leaving the Union, there is no provision in the Constitution for that. Article V provides ways to amend the Constitution.
Can a state government withdraw it's consent to being a part of our constitutional system of government? Perhaps. Is it akin to a unilateral withdrawal from a contract? Probably.

I think you are claiming that the Constitution became null and void when the ratifiers of the Constitution died? That each new generation of Americans should have to either re-ratify the Constitution or create a new form of government?

The classic liberals who created the Constitution were practical men, not simply philosophers. Their aim was to create a system of government that would protect and preserve individual Liberty to the extent that that is possible. They hoped it would work, they knew it might need alterations. They made it amendable. They also recognized that it might become necessary to abolish it if it became tyrannical. They didn't contemplate that tyrannical slave state governments would leave in order to preserve slavery. What they hoped was that everyone would eventually realize that slavery was evil and tyrannical and that the states where it existed would abolish it.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #15 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 9:52am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:18pm:
I basically asked how that consent would be determined, in your mind. I already knew how it was done historically in America.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my questioning. I'm sometime obtuse and abstruse... (Often just for fun!)

So, If the legitimacy of a government depends on the consent of the governed, how should that consent be obtained and determined? Clear enough? If you don't think a republican form of government with democratically elected representatives is good enough, propose something better. Thank you.


Clearly the South in the 1860s did not consent to be governed by the Federal government and Lincoln invaded to use force to keep them in the United Sates, this is an attempt at creating a rat hole.

1)  Lincoln did not do it to free the slaves and the Union had no such plans in the future

2)  Lincoln did not do it because blacks did not consent to be governed by the South

3)  You would support Lincoln's decision regardless of slaves, slave populations or how that influenced the majority opinion in the South.

You like to bicker and go down rat holes, pass.

You are not a classic liberal.  You're just not
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #16 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 9:59am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 8:22am:
In a previous discussion on this forum, I stated that I thought it would have probably been better to let the slave states leave the Union. There is no way of knowing how that would have turned out. Americans were fighting each other over slavery in Kansas and Missouri prior to the Civil war.

It seems obvious to me that the slave state governments understood that if they lost the election, no new slave states would be admitted to the Union and it would only be a matter of time before there were enough free states to amend the Constitution and make slavery illegal (as most civilized nations had already done.)

The only hope for slave states was to leave the Union and try to recruit new slave states from U.S. Territories. That would have guaranteed that the fighting in the Territories would have continued and probably escalated whether the U.S. and the C.S. would have declared war on each other or not.

Did the U.S. government have an obligation to prevent citizens from warring against each other in the Territories? Yes.

Was leaving the Union a preemptive action to attempt to preserve slavery in America? Again yes.

What happened was that the slave states, who's governments had consented to be a part of the Constitutional system of government, decided to break their agreement in order to preserve slavery. They left before slavery had been outlawed, but preserving slavery was the reason they left. If they had not been keeping humans in bondage, buying and selling and breeding them, they would have had no reason to leave the Union. They left before Lincoln was President. War over slavery had already begun in Kansas and Missouri, and it would have continued and escalated. Congress declared war after South Carolina attacked a U.S. military base... You say this makes Lincoln a tyrant? The governments of the slave states were tyrants. They enforced 'laws' that held large portions of their populations in slavery and they left the Union specifically because they believed that was they only way they would be able to continue their tyranny.

No person held as a slave ever consented to be governed by a Master or by the 'laws' enforcing slavery.

As to the issue of states leaving the Union, there is no provision in the Constitution for that. Article V provides ways to amend the Constitution.
Can a state government withdraw it's consent to being a part of our constitutional system of government? Perhaps. Is it akin to a unilateral withdrawal from a contract? Probably.

I think you are claiming that the Constitution became null and void when the ratifiers of the Constitution died? That each new generation of Americans should have to either re-ratify the Constitution or create a new form of government?

The classic liberals who created the Constitution were practical men, not simply philosophers. Their aim was to create a system of government that would protect and preserve individual Liberty to the extent that that is possible. They hoped it would work, they knew it might need alterations. They made it amendable. They also recognized that it might become necessary to abolish it if it became tyrannical. They didn't contemplate that tyrannical slave state governments would leave in order to preserve slavery. What they hoped was that everyone would eventually realize that slavery was evil and tyrannical and that the states where it existed would abolish it.


Interesting back flip argument.  So here's how it goes.

Lincoln did not invade the South to stop slavery, however, the South did want to leave in part to preserve slavery.  Therefore, you get credit for invading for slavery and not for removing the consent of the governed.

Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you supported invading regardless of all those issues, you're not a classic liberal.  To be a classic liberal, you'd have had to believe in consent of the governed.  That is not just a particular view of classic liberals, it's the fundamental view on which all other views are built.  Government is not legitimate without the support of the people being governed by it.  There is no way to fix that later.

Going back to my original point, today we pay for this dearly because California, New York and Illinois are leftist States with massive populations who don't fear inflicting their tyranny freely across the country because the rest of us do not have the power to even credibly threaten to leave to keep them honest.

What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, and that is why you are not a classic liberal.  Spend some more time reading John Locke and the writings of the founding fathers.  With your other views, maybe there's hope for you on this one.  If any State left the Union to free them of the dark cloud of socialism enveloping the country, I would move there
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5904
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #17 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:35pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 8:22am:
In a previous discussion on this forum, I stated that I thought it would have probably been better to let the slave states leave the Union. There is no way of knowing how that would have turned out. Americans were fighting each other over slavery in Kansas and Missouri prior to the Civil war.

It seems obvious to me that the slave state governments understood that if they lost the election, no new slave states would be admitted to the Union and it would only be a matter of time before there were enough free states to amend the Constitution and make slavery illegal (as most civilized nations had already done.)

The only hope for slave states was to leave the Union and try to recruit new slave states from U.S. Territories. That would have guaranteed that the fighting in the Territories would have continued and probably escalated whether the U.S. and the C.S. would have declared war on each other or not.

Did the U.S. government have an obligation to prevent citizens from warring against each other in the Territories? Yes.

Was leaving the Union a preemptive action to attempt to preserve slavery in America? Again yes.

What happened was that the slave states, who's governments had consented to be a part of the Constitutional system of government, decided to break their agreement in order to preserve slavery. They left before slavery had been outlawed, but preserving slavery was the reason they left. If they had not been keeping humans in bondage, buying and selling and breeding them, they would have had no reason to leave the Union. They left before Lincoln was President. War over slavery had already begun in Kansas and Missouri, and it would have continued and escalated. Congress declared war after South Carolina attacked a U.S. military base... You say this makes Lincoln a tyrant? The governments of the slave states were tyrants. They enforced 'laws' that held large portions of their populations in slavery and they left the Union specifically because they believed that was they only way they would be able to continue their tyranny.

No person held as a slave ever consented to be governed by a Master or by the 'laws' enforcing slavery.

As to the issue of states leaving the Union, there is no provision in the Constitution for that. Article V provides ways to amend the Constitution.
Can a state government withdraw it's consent to being a part of our constitutional system of government? Perhaps. Is it akin to a unilateral withdrawal from a contract? Probably.

I think you are claiming that the Constitution became null and void when the ratifiers of the Constitution died? That each new generation of Americans should have to either re-ratify the Constitution or create a new form of government?

The classic liberals who created the Constitution were practical men, not simply philosophers. Their aim was to create a system of government that would protect and preserve individual Liberty to the extent that that is possible. They hoped it would work, they knew it might need alterations. They made it amendable. They also recognized that it might become necessary to abolish it if it became tyrannical. They didn't contemplate that tyrannical slave state governments would leave in order to preserve slavery. What they hoped was that everyone would eventually realize that slavery was evil and tyrannical and that the states where it existed would abolish it.



Good post and it says something about your real character.

Nothing new though and so really all that needs to be said to the south is, 'time to move on'.

I would suggest that if the south had the option, they would go back to a system of slavery, or at least pretty close to its equivalent.

Maybe they would see it as out of necessity, as many of those states economies aren't viable without slavery.

Slavery being the equivalent to employing entire families of illegal refugees from poor Hispanic countries.

Both you and I know by now Jeff, Trump is full of shit with his border wall and the crackdown on illegal immigrants. That's why it hasn't been solved and never will be completely.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #18 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:45pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:35pm:
Good post and it says something about your real character.

Nothing new though and so really all that needs to be said to the south is, 'time to move on'.

I would suggest that if the south had the option, they would go back to a system of slavery, or at least pretty close to its equivalent.

Maybe they would see it as out of necessity, as many of those states economies aren't viable without slavery.

Slavery being the equivalent to employing entire families of illegal refugees from poor Hispanic countries.

Both you and I know by now Jeff, Trump is full of shit with his border wall and the crackdown on illegal immigrants. That's why it hasn't been solved and never will be completely.


The discussion is about "consent of the governed," Burt. You may now snap your fingers and disappear.  No one can see you, honest ...

  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #19 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 4:43pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Interesting back flip argument.  So here's how it goes.

Lincoln did not invade the South to stop slavery, however, the South did want to leave in part to preserve slavery.  Therefore, you get credit for invading for slavery and not for removing the consent of the governed.

Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you supported invading regardless of all those issues, you're not a classic liberal.  To be a classic liberal, you'd have had to believe in consent of the governed.  That is not just a particular view of classic liberals, it's the fundamental view on which all other views are built.  Government is not legitimate without the support of the people being governed by it.  There is no way to fix that later.

Going back to my original point, today we pay for this dearly because California, New York and Illinois are leftist States with massive populations who don't fear inflicting their tyranny freely across the country because the rest of us do not have the power to even credibly threaten to leave to keep them honest.

What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, and that is why you are not a classic liberal.  Spend some more time reading John Locke and the writings of the founding fathers.  With your other views, maybe there's hope for you on this one.  If any State left the Union to free them of the dark cloud of socialism enveloping the country, I would move there
The root cause of the American Civil War was slavery in general and the barbaric governments of the slave states in particular.

If you believe differently and can articulate some alternative cause for the Civil War, please do.

You say Lincoln was a tyrant because he invaded slave states.

I say slave state governments were evil tyrants who broke the promise of the Constitution they had agreed to abide by. They were faithless and untrustworthy as are all tyrants. Angry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy