Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent ***
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Consent *** (Read 267 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Consent ***
Jan 9th, 2020 at 1:31pm
Print Post  
How you know if a government has consent.

The dim witted among us, including socks, think that consent of the governed = majority vote.  No, it doesn't.  It means that the people overwhelmingly support the government.   There is no magic formula.  But attributes of a government with consent are things like:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately

Voting:  Voting may be a reason people consent to the government, but that would be their choice.  Voting does not imply consent and consent does not imply voting.  There may be voting and you can or can't vote.  That may affect your decision whether to consent, but it's fallacious to conclude that not being able to vote means you don't consent.  That would be a sock telling you what to think, and he can't do that.

Note you can't apply a formula to the percentage of people who need to consent to reasonably consent of the governed.  It depends in many factors.  Starting with how fervently those for and against the government oppose it.   A government with opposition who mildly oppose the government could bear a far greater number of dissenters than a government opposed by violent dissenters.

Dissent can come and go.   A government can be created without consent.  In fact, most are.  Trust has to be established.  And dissent can go at any time.  It's up to the population if they consent.  And they can change it both ways any time.

The US and consent:  At the time of the creation of the country, the States had consent.  It took time for the Federal government to have it.   That consent eventually came, but it left in the civil war.  It came back and has been dissipating since FDR.   It was a lot better when consent centered on the States rather than the Federal government.  Now authoritarian leftists want to control us all and we have no place to go.

Changing the Constitution.   The framers felt that if 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 agreed with a Constitutional Amendment, then the country must consent.  That was reasonable at that time when consent centered on the States.  Today it's less so.   But then, if you could get that, you were assured you had consent.  It's possible you had consent and could not get that.  The framers were fine with that.  So you didn't get it.  Better than the reverse.

OK, there's nothing new in here Mommy's Little Man.  So what is the whining still all about?  What exactly have I not answered ... repeatedly ... ???

Note I started this in a thread to link to every time you start whining I didn't address what consent means again

  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #1 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:12pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 1:31pm:
How you know if a government has consent.

The dim witted among us, including socks, think that consent of the governed = majority vote.  No, it doesn't.  It means that the people overwhelmingly support the government.   There is no magic formula.  But attributes of a government with consent are things like:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately

Voting:  Voting may be a reason people consent to the government, but that would be their choice.  Voting does not imply consent and consent does not imply voting.  There may be voting and you can or can't vote.  That may affect your decision whether to consent, but it's fallacious to conclude that not being able to vote means you don't consent.  That would be a sock telling you what to think, and he can't do that.

Note you can't apply a formula to the percentage of people who need to consent to reasonably consent of the governed.  It depends in many factors.  Starting with how fervently those for and against the government oppose it.   A government with opposition who mildly oppose the government could bear a far greater number of dissenters than a government opposed by violent dissenters.

Dissent can come and go.   A government can be created without consent.  In fact, most are.  Trust has to be established.  And dissent can go at any time.  It's up to the population if they consent.  And they can change it both ways any time.

The US and consent:  At the time of the creation of the country, the States had consent.  It took time for the Federal government to have it.   That consent eventually came, but it left in the civil war.  It came back and has been dissipating since FDR.   It was a lot better when consent centered on the States rather than the Federal government.  Now authoritarian leftists want to control us all and we have no place to go.

Changing the Constitution.   The framers felt that if 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 agreed with a Constitutional Amendment, then the country must consent.  That was reasonable at that time when consent centered on the States.  Today it's less so.   But then, if you could get that, you were assured you had consent.  It's possible you had consent and could not get that.  The framers were fine with that.  So you didn't get it.  Better than the reverse.

OK, there's nothing new in here Mommy's Little Man.  So what is the whining still all about?  What exactly have I not answered ... repeatedly ... ???

Note I started this in a thread to link to every time you start whining I didn't address what consent means again



Good, good.

You have addressed what consent means.   You're halfway there.

Now all you have to do is tell us how consent is measured and be ready to provide a few specifics.  If you say, "Yo mamma measures it!" that doesn't count.

At the beginning of the U.S. Constitutional government which of these five:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately

Would a slave on a plantation likely have agreed was true?

Would you agree with someone who argued that nothing in 1 through 5 requires a vote, so therefore voting is not required to demonstrate a consensual government?


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #2 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:22pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:12pm:
Good, good.

You have addressed what consent means.   You're halfway there.

Now all you have to do is tell us how consent is measured and be ready to provide a few specifics.  If you say, "Yo mamma measures it!" that doesn't count.

At the beginning of the U.S. Constitutional government which of these five:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately

Would a slave on a plantation likely have agreed was true?

Would you agree with someone who argued that nothing in 1 through 5 requires a vote, so therefore voting is not required to demonstrate a consensual government?




Who is "us?"  Don and your two socks?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #3 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:33pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:22pm:
Who is "us?"  Don and your two socks?


Ok, so you're back to not answering questions. 

How about this one:

All of these:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately


Are most certainly true today in the U.S.  So, how can you say there is no consent now, but there used to be?



  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #4 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:40pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:33pm:
Ok, so you're back to not answering questions


I do when I get a serious question.  I may when I get ones like that which imply you're speaking for galleries of people who hang on your every word
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #5 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:42pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:33pm:
Ok, so you're back to not answering questions. 

How about this one:

All of these:

1) The people are peaceful and secure and not afraid
2) The government is under no threat from the people because the people support the government, not because of guns
3) People would turn in rebels and criminals to the government because they don't want them to threaten the peace
4) People trust the process and if they don't get their way will support the outcome because they think that is right
5) People think the government is legitimate and the laws have been arrived at legitimately


Are most certainly true today in the U.S.  So, how can you say there is no consent now, but there used to be?





I disagree 4 and 5 apply today in this age of free wealth redistribution.

You seriously think that Democrats accept the Trump presidency?

You seriously think fiscal conservatives accept the outcome of votes that strip us of our property?

I agree we're not in full civil war, but the country is clearly fractured and people don't accept the outcome of elections they lose
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #6 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:45pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:12pm:
Would a slave on a plantation likely have agreed was true?


None.  And it's irrelevant to consent, they weren't citizens.  I've told you repeatedly that consent doesn't make a government moral, it only makes it of the people.  The people meanings citizens.

Bbbuuutttttt slavery, kaz!  Your tired refrain.

Here's a pat on the back for your anti-slavery stance.  It's a bit behind the times, as in over a century and a half, but the right position none the less.

So well done I say, bravo ...
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #7 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:54pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:45pm:
None.  And it's irrelevant to consent, they weren't citizens.  I've told you repeatedly that consent doesn't make a government moral, it only makes it of the people.  The people meanings citizens.


So, you've Jeffed up your own new definition of "The people" to mean only citizens?

If you can just change the meanings of words anytime during a conversation, the conversation has become meaningless. 

Not that it matters since words don't mean things anymore, but were women citizens?


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #8 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:58pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:54pm:
So, you've Jeffed up your own new definition of "The people" to mean only citizens?

If you can just change the meanings of words anytime during a conversation, the conversation has become meaningless. 

Not that it matters since words don't mean things anymore, but were women citizens?




The People were always citizens, Dorothy.   You thought that The People in the Constitution were citizens of the freaking WORLD!  You're a total ding bat, Edith!!!!

OMG, what a stupid douche

Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

Mommy's Little Man:  The Constitution give free speech to ... the WHOLE WORLD!!!!!

Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

Constitution:  We the people of the United States ...

Stupid Douche LBM:  That's the WORLD kaz, the WORLD!!!!!


Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #9 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:02pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:54pm:
Not that it matters since words don't mean things anymore, but were women citizens?




Yes, if "We the People of the United States" means US citizens, then words don't mean anything anymore ...

Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

What a dumb ass.

And obviously women were citizens.  Why don't you get past your stupid shit and ask your question
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent ***
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy