Page 1 of 37 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 363

Thread: The Myth of Consent

  1. #1
    Great Value Carrots iOWNme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wise and Prepared
    Posts
    4,327
    Thanks
    1,658
    Thanked 2,086 Times in 925 Posts

    The Myth of Consent

    The Myth of Consent

    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 you want 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
    My Etsy store: https://twitter.com/xIOWNMEx

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iOWNme For This Useful Post:

    Ares (12th March 2014),Hatha Sunahara (12th March 2014),Ponce (12th March 2014)

  3. #2
    Unobtanium
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    19,045
    Thanks
    1,368
    Thanked 3,159 Times in 1,916 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    There are only two laws......the law of the people by congress (not always good) and the law of the gun (always bad) ........ for example, in 1930 President Hoover pass the property tax law, that law was thrown out in 1971 or 1972 (forgot which year) however, the government never told the people about it so that people are still paying property tax by the will of the gun.

    V
    "If you don't hold it, you don't own it"... Ponce

    "I'll never stop learning because I'll never stop reading"... Ponce

  4. #3
    Unobtanium singular_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Money-Free Planet
    Posts
    11,658
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 2,433 Times in 1,844 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    until the day we become fully responsible for ourselves, myths will continue to abound
    All the money that exists cannot buy Earth, and the evidence is that we destroy our habitat as a result, thinking that we can just seize and pillage as we see fit. If crowds endorse the pursuit of wealth at their own level, they cannot prevent multinationals from doing exactly the same. The “dystopian endless growth paradigm” is going to end with a bang but will open the door to a premise endorsing that Earth is the only wealth we truly have while journeying through life.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to singular_me For This Useful Post:

    govcheetos (12th March 2014)

  6. #4
    Unobtanium Dogman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    13,674
    Thanks
    2,443
    Thanked 2,080 Times in 1,611 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    Quote Originally Posted by singular_me View Post
    until the day we become fully responsible for ourselves, myths will continue to abound
    Out of context but myths also give reasons to strive and explore or teach life lessons in a third/forth party way. The day myths die, imagination dies and then why live?
    "My reading no matter how transient is a dagger in the heart of ignorance."

  7. #5
    Unobtanium palani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,510
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 2,724 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    The system works as much on honor and dishonor as it does on consent. People are sent to prison for dishonor more than any other reason. These people tend to fall into argument and would rather fight than agree. Never disagree. Also never make a statement. A statement presumes you have facts. You have no facts. Even things you see or hear are subject to your interpretation and this part of the process can be easily shown to be flawed.

    People are not told that dishonor is punishable or even that they have an option other than to fight. This is not a topic that is ever taught in any public school and few parents know it so that they might pass it along to their children.
    Make me one with everything.
    -- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to palani For This Useful Post:

    govcheetos (12th March 2014),Ponce (12th March 2014),vacuum (20th March 2014)

  9. #6
    Unobtanium singular_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Money-Free Planet
    Posts
    11,658
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 2,433 Times in 1,844 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    I fully agree with what you say, Dogman!!

    it all depends on which side of the fence one sits on...

    positively: myths teach us about the true human nature and leave a message in their wake, how we can improve ourselves.
    negatively: they make us walk in circles - when oblivious to their message(s).

    People who are serious about knowing humans better must investigate ancient Greek and Egyptian myths.

    And ultimately, myths incarnate the Universal Psyche, so they'll always be there... to guide us through the process of becoming self-aware.

    Myths will always convey both sides of the fence, thats why we call them Myths... (same holds true with religions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
    Out of context but myths also give reasons to strive and explore or teach life lessons in a third/forth party way. The day myths die, imagination dies and then why live?
    All the money that exists cannot buy Earth, and the evidence is that we destroy our habitat as a result, thinking that we can just seize and pillage as we see fit. If crowds endorse the pursuit of wealth at their own level, they cannot prevent multinationals from doing exactly the same. The “dystopian endless growth paradigm” is going to end with a bang but will open the door to a premise endorsing that Earth is the only wealth we truly have while journeying through life.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to singular_me For This Useful Post:

    Dogman (12th March 2014)

  11. #7
    Great Value Carrots hoarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,683
    Thanks
    3,075
    Thanked 2,509 Times in 1,301 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    Quote Originally Posted by iOWNbagels View Post
    [FONT=verdana]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.
    Hey Big-Lib, you're very predictable. You attach liberty to the obliteration of borders.

    So, when are you going to tell us who controls the media and the Federal Reserve?

  12. #8
    Unobtanium singular_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Money-Free Planet
    Posts
    11,658
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 2,433 Times in 1,844 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    hey Hoarder, borders are another myth... so, it is all fine as long as you live within your own national territory... but then need the **permission** to leave your country for another one, what we call VISA where is freedom to travel and adopt a new area, in all that

    the question of open borders is a tough one but it cannot be resolved with the current and average mindset. It is all about economic xenophobia in the end... follow the money.

    Freedom canNOT exist without the possibility to travel and settle down wherever one wishes.

    Freedom within one's own borders only = cage with invisible bars


    Quote Originally Posted by hoarder View Post
    Hey Big-Lib, you're very predictable. You attach liberty to the obliteration of borders.

    So, when are you going to tell us who controls the media and the Federal Reserve?
    All the money that exists cannot buy Earth, and the evidence is that we destroy our habitat as a result, thinking that we can just seize and pillage as we see fit. If crowds endorse the pursuit of wealth at their own level, they cannot prevent multinationals from doing exactly the same. The “dystopian endless growth paradigm” is going to end with a bang but will open the door to a premise endorsing that Earth is the only wealth we truly have while journeying through life.

  13. #9
    Great Value Carrots hoarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,683
    Thanks
    3,075
    Thanked 2,509 Times in 1,301 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    Quote Originally Posted by singular_me View Post
    hey Hoarder, borders are another myth... so, it is all fine as long as you live within your own national territory... but then need the **permission** to leave your country for another one, what we call VISA where is freedom (freedom to travel and adopt a new area, in all that

    the question of open borders is a tough one but it cannot be resolved with the current and average mindset. It is all about economic xenophobia in the end... follow the money.

    Freedom canNOT exist without the possibility to travel and settle down wherever on wishes.
    The mass genocide of my people is a myth because it doesn't suit your ideology to acknowledge it.


    . "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
    Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957


    "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to hoarder For This Useful Post:

    mick silver (12th March 2014)

  15. #10
    Unobtanium singular_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Money-Free Planet
    Posts
    11,658
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 2,433 Times in 1,844 Posts

    Re: The Myth of Consent

    Hoarder, in my view racial issues are another myth... it is all about $$$, Blacks were shipped to the US because they were a "cheap" workforce. Thats slavery's prime cause ... then come the consequences

    I think racial issues in the US (and beyond), rather show **massive** brainwashing, aka mind control.

    I dont care about your point of view, slavery is just utterly wrong... therefore I will NOT take side with people behind it, nor the victims. Neutrality is the only way to END the vicious Sado-Masochistic STATE of affair that is slavery.
    All the money that exists cannot buy Earth, and the evidence is that we destroy our habitat as a result, thinking that we can just seize and pillage as we see fit. If crowds endorse the pursuit of wealth at their own level, they cannot prevent multinationals from doing exactly the same. The “dystopian endless growth paradigm” is going to end with a bang but will open the door to a premise endorsing that Earth is the only wealth we truly have while journeying through life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •