Take America back - not as long as you suck corporate dick. On Jun 24, 9:36 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > The Myth of Political Consentby James OstrowskiThis is an excerpt fromDirect > Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second AmericanRevolution Without Firing a > Shot. > Permit me to digress into a discussion of the meaning of political consent > and its withdrawal. I am not saying that the American people ever explicitly > consented to be ruled by the regime on the Potomac, or that they are parties > to some mysterious Social Contract that implies their consent. That is all > utter nonsense and propaganda. I know I never consented to be ruled by a > regime that I have strongly opposed since my teenage years. Nor have I ever > signed a Social Contract allowing them to rule over me. I’d be a jackass if I > had. > To the best of my knowledge, no living American ever signed a contract to be > ruled by the creepy politicians in DC. There are people long dead who signed > a proposed Constitution and there are 11791people long dead who voted at > state conventions to ratify the Constitution. However, no living American > ever agreed to be bound by the consent to be governed apparently given by > people long dead that they did not know. > Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has brilliantly refuted all possible > theories of how citizens can be found to haveimplicitlyconsented to be ruled > when it is perfectly obvious that they have notexplicitlyconsented. > See,Restoring the Lost Constitution(2004), pp. 11 et seq. > Voting does not imply consent as we never get to vote on the legitimacy of > the regime itself. And what if you voteagainstthe regime as I have done in > every election since I was allowed to vote? How in the world can that be > construed as consent? Well, I played the game. Okay, so if I stop voting, I > have withdrawn my consent? That’s a bargain! I will stop voting, withdraw my > consent and the tax bills will cease. Hurray! Yeah, but youcould haveplayed > the game, they will say. Barnett replies: "It is a queer kind of ‘consent’ > where there is no way to refuse one’s consent." (p. 16). Barnett goes on to > demolish all the familiar rationalizations for why average citizens have > "consented" to be governed by political thugs in DC:Residency– this argument > "presupposes that those who demand that you leave already have authority over > you." (p. 18) It’s a circular argument.Acquiescence to the laws. "Does one > really manifest a consent to obey the commands of someone much more powerful > simply because one does not physically resist the threat of violence for > noncompliance?" (p. 21)Acceptance of the regime. This proves too much, > according to Barnett. Even oppressive regimes have the passive acceptance of > their people in the sense they do not actively revolt.Acceptance of benefits. > This is the most common argument made by liberals these days. With respect to > the alleged benefits of the state’s legal system, Barnett simply notes that > there can be no consent since there is no way to opt out. The argument from > receipt of tangible "benefits" also fails. These are paid for by compulsory > taxes you never consented to. Only if such things as roads, schools, and fire > protection were funded voluntarily, could you be said to have consented to > the regime by using them. That never happened of course. Also, again, to > consent, there must be a reasonable way not to consent. If I refuse to use > the streets, I die of starvation. It’s a distorted view of consent that leads > to the "argument": join us or die!Thus, we the living never consented to the > current regime in the first place in any meaningful way. Thus, what I am > proposing is this: we need to make explicit what is already implicit. We need > to announce that we do not accept the legitimacy of the regime. This regime > is blatantly, openly and proudly violating our natural rights. It is not > legitimate within the clear understanding of our founding document, the > Declaration of Independence. Thus, you have no moral obligation to support > it. Withdrawing moral support for the regime is critical since public support > is the very basis of the regime’s power. That is why government schools are > so critical to the maintenance of the regime’s power. And that is why even > totalitarian regimes have elaborate propaganda operations. > I emphasize again that I do not advocate civil disobedience. Why engage in > risky and costly law-breaking when we can take America back through lawful > and peaceful means? > Ifthe regimebegins to unambiguously violate its own constitution, thenit > becomes the practitioner of civil disobedienceand the people will have a > moral and legal right to resist as I explain further in Chapter 20.NoteIn 14 > states including > Vermont.http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski98.1.html
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
