What gives the government the right to rule over you?
Is it
> You agreed to be part of the political system?
> Most people participate in democracy?
>The government has the consent of most people?
> The government has the biggest guns?
>>69787912
For example, most people think David Cameron's government is legitimate, even though less than 1/3 people voted for it.
Where does that come from?
>>69787912
>>69788107
In the US at least, we consider consent to be implicit.
In a free society, if you choose to remain within the society, you implicitly consent to be governed by the rules and laws of that society.
biggest joke there is
>>69788247
What does consent mean though?
Most people don't understand what the government does, and there's no way for them to withdraw their consent to be governed.
It seems more like it's simply out of habit and what you expect others to do.
>>69787912
Rights don't exist. So, nothing gave the government the right to rule over anyone. It was claimed and sustained by force.
>>69788465
In that case, how come governments exist which don't even have weapons (like Iceland).
Most of the time the government isn't using force or threats to get people to go along with what it wants.
The government has absolutely no right. If anything, it would be because they have the biggest guns, but that's it. That's not really a right though. That's like saying a mugger has a right to take my wallet because they're pointing a gun at me. Government itself is insane and a violation of the non-aggression principle.
>>69788420
I don't understand where you're going with this.
It doesn't matter if you "understand" what the government does on a day to day. No single person can practically know everything a government does anyways. Most legal systems don't care if you're ignorant of the laws anyways.
If you want to withdraw your consent, then leave the country and renounce your citizenship.
>>69788578
I think you'd claim to be some kind of anarchist saying that, but all historical societies seem to end up with some kind of government.
You could argue the mugger is competing with the government in whose law should rule. If the mugger offered you better security and life than the government, you might consent to giving your money to the mugger rather than the IRS.
Logically it makes sense for people to co-operate, and to do that, you need managers, so government will usually emerge.
>>69787912
Monopoly of violence. So yes, its because they have the biggest guns.
>>69788703
>Most legal systems don't care if you're ignorant of the laws anyways.
That seems like a big problem in terms of consent also.
> If you want to withdraw your consent, then leave the country and renounce your citizenship.
Why should you have to leave a piece of land to withdraw your consent to be governed? Why can't you just say "I withdraw my consent"?
Most people can't afford to leave the country, and governments usually don't let you renounce citizenship unless you have another passport.
>>69788799
You're saying that, but how much violence does, say, the Dutch government exert? It seems most people go along with being governed for reasons other than fear.
And isn't democracy government by the people in some way? Why should the people fear themselves?
>>69787912
picture related
>>69788922
So are you pretending to be a moron or what?
You can't just declare that a nation's laws don't apply to you and otherwise expect nothing else to happen
>>69789160
What makes most people believe those laws and government are legitimate in the first place?
If it's non-consensual, how come most people are okay with it, democratic or not?
But if there's consent, when did we consent?
It's a puzzle.
>>69788772
n-not an argument
>>69789255
It's not a puzzle, most people consent to be governed. Obviously this happens when you become a legal adult in your country. If you don't consent, then you leave your country.
It's very simple, not sure why you can't grasp this
>>69787912
All power that a goverment has comes from forcing that power to the people in their region. If you don't pay taxes you lose your property, if you still refuse to be robbed by the state they will use force to make you comply.
There is no way out unless you overtake the goverment, but in reality government is a necessary evil so the discussion of it should be around what are the role of the goverment and how much you should relinquish to them in the form of taxes and what does the citizens get in return for it.
>go innawoods
>declare woods to be new country
>deer and birds serve witness
>be ungovernable in the woods
>remain ignored until you or government die
>>69789474
What kind of consent doesn't involve any actual consent?
And why should you have to leave a piece of land to withdraw that consent?
We don't really consent in any meaningful way.
>>69789065
>isn't democracy government by the people in some way?
Democracy cannot exist beyond a city.
There is no country wide democracy.
>>69789474
It's not consent.
American for example are owned by the fed at birth, as explicitely written on their birth certificates.
European are not allowed to be counrtiless. We can be traded to another country but always owned like cattle by the central bankers.
>>69788703
>leave the country
>your only options are living on an island or going to another country to be governed by someone else
I don't think that accomplishes what OP is after.
>>69789065
They have police and laws, and I have no means to overcome the police, so I must follow the law. You understand what monopoly of violence means, yes? No one can organize a force strong enough to oppose the state.
Not even the well armed USA could do much to oppose their government.
>>69790348
So if you were certain you could get away with a crime that benefited you, you'd do it?
>>69788465
rights do exist friend, but only one truly matters
>MIGHT IS RIGHT
The government is the representative manager of the majority of the countries owners.
So long as you live on the land, you have to listen to the owners, or their representatives.
>>69790436
Of course. If it benefited me. Humans are profoundly selfish creatures, after all.
>>69787912
the mandate of heaven
>>69788571
The force part isn't inherent to a strike force or a totalitarian state. But governments do enforce their will on the people. You aren't allowed to Not pay your taxes or comply with the law of the goverment set in place, you simply can't.
So for most people complying with the goverment is the norm so they follow along to get along. And that is the bases for the evolution of governments with have today were everyone agrees that federal, state and local governments are required and that you should comply with all of them or face the consequences. For most people settling with those terms is acceptable so no one ever questions the nature of the system.
>>69787912
The government doesn't "rule over you" it protects your rights. By extension, you have to acknowledge that other people have rights and the government must protect theirs as well. For example, you don't have the freedom to kill someone else because they have rights. The government thus tries to prevent murder. It's called social contract, look it up.
>>69787912
Representative Republic
The illusion of having some say in the policies enacted is what I think of it as. Realistically, you can only get tangible policy changes that effect you at a local or state level. The federal government is far too bloated and clotted with red tape and special interest pandering.
>>69787912
>What gives the government the right to rule over you?
It's the best system we've found yet to promote stability and progress. You're free to not abide those rules but, please, go do it somewhere else, most people just want to live a peaceful life and prefer a good dose of arbitrary rules rather than free-will randomness.
>>69790999
>be born
>posess weed
>arrested/locked up
>"Protects my rights"
inb4 stoner degenerate
>>69790999
Kek. The American government protects my right to be a second class citizen as a straight white male. It subsidizes the ambitions of minorities, women, and sodomites. It turns a blind eye to black on white crime - it won't even mention it. All the while I hear about how evil I am because I was born white. Fuck off and take your anti-white cuckold's government with you
>>69790348
Our government's only means to quell rebellion lies in a volunteer civilian military. They don't have the numbers to lock down the whole country.
>>69787912
The government has a monopoly on the sole use of force within a given geographical boundary.
Idiot rights only exist in the human mind, they have no objective tangible existence.
>>69791633
>le oppressed white man
lawl
If you're a straight, white male and you feel oppressed, then either you're a fuckup or you're doing it wrong.
>>69791474
>You're free to not abide those rules
No you aren't.
When we say consent we usually are talking about sex.
Imagine if being governed was like having sex.
You'd be forced to have sex from birth and your consent would be "presumed".
The only way to stop having sex with this person would be to leave the land you're living on and start having sex with someone else.
You can't ever stop having sex.
>>69791955
> be SJW
> hate racism
> stereotype all white people as being powerful and privileged
> never, ever notice how powerful Jews are
>>69791958
Well, all available land has been claimed by societies. What did you expect, that they'd leave some spare land for you? Why do you think you're entitled to that?
>>69791958
Are you saying the government is literally raping you your entire life? Not inaccurate, just a funny way to put it.
>>69791955
This is the most retarded argument ever. Mostly because the prime use of force and marginalization is money, not race, not gender, no politics, no ideologies no nothing. Liberals fighting the mean machine of "inequality" and "social oppression" and never realize that the true force of marginalization is being poor.
News flash there are poor white people, poor black people, poor hispanics, poor women, poor men, poor gays, poor transgenders, poor whatever. And people not realizing that is why oppressed white people are turning out under the rocks and voting for Trump, because he is actually addressing those people, while he may be lying to them he is at least acknowledging their fucking existence.
>>69792199
> Are you saying the government is literally raping you your entire life?
If we treated sexual consent the same way we treated consent to be governed, yes.
>>69792133
People who want to be governed get some land to live on. Why isn't there anywhere to live if you don't want to be governed?
I want to withdraw my consent to be governed.
>>69791955
I did well despite the institutional barriers to success which straight white men face. Why do you think it is that suicide rates among white men have skyrocketed? It isn't a coincidence that in the UK, for example, poor white males are now the least likely demographic to go to college.
-Affirmative action (I have seen this first hand. From my high school a white male and a black male applied to MIT. The white had a higher GPA, SAT, and similar extracurriculars. The white was denied and the black got in. The black got in to MIT with a fucking 1800/2400 on his SAT. The white had around a 2200.)
-The government subsidizes small businesses owned by women (muh wimmenz equality)
-Blacks murder and rape whites at a massively out-sized rate, yet are not held accountable. The media and the government dare not mention this.
-Anti-white college professors allow minorities to state racist opinions in class (I also witnessed this first hand -a black said "fucking old white men and their racist history" and the teacher laughed and agreed).
White males face institutionalized disadvantages, you blue-pilled cuckold.
>>69791958
If you don't want society there's still plenty of unhabitated islands everywhere where you can live alone. No one will force you to abide a government's rules there. You won't have the downside of society there but don't expect to have the upsides coming with you.
>>69792433
To be honest, I suspect the whole "white privilege" thing came out of Jewish dominance in social sciences. If they can get lefties to denounce white people, they might just not notice which ethnic group is really genuinely powerful in society.
>>69792450
>People who want to be governed get some land to live on.
No. Citizens get the right to live on the land that they collectively own.
>Why isn't there anywhere to live if you don't want to be governed?
Because all available land is already owned. A logical result of human expansion across the planet. In fact, land has been so contested for so long that we've killed each other over it by the millions, and you think we'd just let a patch sit around for you?
Again: What the fuck makes you think you're entitled to a batch of land that a society that currently owns it has to hand to you?
>>69792566
No, I don't want to obey a government. Not the same as not wanting to live around people. I'm still forced to be a citizen of somewhere. The whole thing is pretty outrageous if you think about it in terms of moral consent.
>Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
>>69792640
What makes people who consent to government think they're entitled to land?
Living in a country doesn't entitle you to land either, so you're arguing a strawman. But there should be some way to withdraw your consent to be governed.
>>69790999
Until it starts taking away your rights.
So what I've gotten out of this thread is that OP is the British equivalent of a Sovereign Citizen.
>>69792816
>What makes people who consent to government think they're entitled to land?
They're its owners.
All citizens of a country are collectively the owners of the country's land, as well as of all public property.
This ownership stems from a) tradition and b) guns.
>Living in a country doesn't entitle you to land either
No, but it entitles you to live on land. Big difference, and what I actually said. So... the strawman is actually on you.
> But there should be some way to withdraw your consent to be governed.
Find or make your own land. Until then, your feels don't trump our property rights.
>>69792433
Look, I see what you're getting at but let's face the facts. Straight, white men are the most employed group in the US. Is that a conspiracy? Anyone can make shit decisions and then blame "the system".
> be poor
> work ass off
> not be poor
Seems pretty simple, friend.
>>69793063
> work ass off
> work
quite an abstract concept to anyone who refer to social ""sciences"'" notions to justify their shitty life
>>69793063
>. Straight, white men are the most employed group in the US. Is that a conspiracy? Anyone can make shit decisions and then blame "the system".
White People also represent over 70% of your population and that isn't counting your "white hispanics". I used to work in Detroit and LA and I can tell you both places were full of "minorities", why? Because those places were full of them as well, I would guess working in any office in a major city in america is the same and only in places that "overly" white you will get to work in a place that is "overly white".
Also the problem with your argument is that you don't usually have means to get out of poverty, that is why it is "oppression", sure the individual talent may rise to the occasion and come out of it but that isn't the norm is just the exception. You are obviously not poor because you have internet access and a computer to post, you clearly don't know real poverty. I don't know it either anymore. But I know that while this country is a shithole at least we give the tools to people to come out of poverty. I did. My parents were poor as fuck but since I could go to college (for basically "free") I got out of it but that wasn't automatic but the path was there for me to take it and was really clear and with no bullshit, no debt no nothing. The problem is that most people don't take advantage of it but that is a different discussion. But when you are poor (really poor) you can't do the rest of things, you can't concentrate on work or study or your family and everything else fall apart.
>>69793018
> Property rights are legitimate because they come from the government
> The government is legitimate because it gives us property
Nice circular argument, Hans.
These lands you live on have been won and lost in battle countless times for thousands of years. The winning faction gets to choose how to govern it and you, as a citizen, get to benefit from the easy-going life of living in a modern society, given you abide by the rules of the government..
You can choose to live your life on that piece of land that's not yours and pursue whatever craft or lifestyle you desire. You may even, in time, be part of its government and participate more actively in society.
If you find the laws of the land cause you such inconvenience that you cannot live under them, though, you're free to leave. Just don't be naive and expect there to be land that hasn't been claimed by others who've come before you.
>>69793992
That wasn't the argument I made, though.
"Government" doesn't give us shit all. They just manage. They're people we hire to keep the property value up, to make sure public services stay up, to keep order on our land. If they manage in a way we don't like, it's up to us to reprimand them.
The property right comes from the fact that we and our forefathers, from which we inherited the land, have been living here for a long time, and is backed by the military, because no right is worth shit without force backing it.
The government is legitimate because we, as the owners of the land, through force and tradition, elect them to manage the land for us. They're legitimate because we hire them.
And if you now try to argue that the military is the government I swear I'm gonna pumpkin your house.
>>69792556
> affirmative blacktion
Agreed. That's retarded. Hasn't "held back" my personal drive, choices or earnings.
> wymmenz subsidy
What man's man would fucking cry about this?
> blacks murder and rape, yet not accountable
Prisons are full of the accountable. Damn right the media won't touch this - they're lefties.
> racist colleges
Onoes! Liberal, lefty colleges are RACIST!
I'm blue-pilled? Kek. Maybe, stop being such a pussy and go get what you want. Or, instead you could keep shitposting on a pakistani basket weaving board.
>>69794235
Nope.
Property rights would not exist without the government and the law to keep others off your property.
That's what property is.
> The government is legitimate because we, as the owners of the land, through force and tradition, elect them to manage the land for us.
Elections have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the government. Most Chinese and Singaporean people agree their government is legitimate. Most people under monarchies and dictatorships in history would've said so, too.
But there was no point at which ANY of us actually consented to be governed.
>>69793844
So.. personal choices end up deciding if you succeed. If stupid people don't, then it's their fault - not the government's. You said it. The tools are there. People just choose not to use them and thus get stuck in a cycle of poverty.
>>69788107
So what are you saying? That only a government that has consent of 100% of the populace is legitimate? In that case such a government has never existed, and therefore all governments are apparently illegitimate.
governments exist by right of confusion and misagreements.
i hope that someday we have the technology to exist in societies of 15 to 40 people, as nomads, with something like a house you carry on your back and expands, and a nuclear fusion backpack and supercomputers the size of beans and bioneural interfaces, and all wars are like between 100 people and last a week or so with like six casualties, and magic medicine machines and laser swords.
eventually technology will disintegrate society and government and nations back into small tribes.
>>69794831
You're forgetting Best Korea.
>>69794618
>Property rights would not exist without the government and the law to keep others off your property.
Sure they would, they'd just have weaker backing.
But I'm talking about the country as a whole. The collective properties "Germany", "United Kindom", "USA". Those exist independent of the government, because there are men standing ready to defend it, men with guns.
Property rights within the nation exist for the same reason, but now the men are called cops, though you can also defend (and hence back up) your claims by yourself. Governments help arbitrate those claims in case there's doubt, because it's more practical than everyone gathering and agreeing on a solution. That's what you have managers for.
>Elections have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the government.
In a republic, or constitutional monarchy, very much so. Constitutional monarchies are weird cases, though, where the actual property owner is still the king/queen/emperor/etc, but all rights to the property lie with the people. Good enough.
>Most Chinese and Singaporean people agree their government is legitimate.
In case of china, I'm sure their government tells you as much, or else.
Singapore is a democracy.
Maybe in a different/flawed way, but it is.
>Most people under monarchies and dictatorships in history would've said so, too.
People can be wrong, which would be the case in dictatorships. But they eventually realize this, which is why dictatorships get toppled all the time.
In monarchies, the right actually did lie with the king. The king, and that was the center of the whole feudalistic system, was the owner of the land.
>But there was no point at which ANY of us actually consented to be governed.
Okay, you seem to be a little slow.
Every election is consent to the system. Every single one.
And if the people want to revoke their consent, they can fire the government any time they want.
Until then, the minority doesn't get to overrule the majority. DEAL WITH IT.
>>69794758
That would be true if the tools you give to the people aren't a spoon and a dull knife. Having to pay your way to college isn't a way out of poverty is just a way to increase your poverty.
Usually when you are poor and are a proper citizen (read as no coming down to crime to get what you don't have) you usually avoid taking big risk, specially financial ones because you simply can't afford to lose, even if the risk could potentially take you out of poverty the conservatism in you will scream and usually win the discussion of not to take that path.
If you have "free" college then the situation is different. Also you don't need "free" college giving people a trade in highschool is also useful, as a kid I took technical school over traditional one and became an electronic technician, my plan A was becoming an engineer my plan B was to live of my trade. But I could made those plans because society at large gave me those options.
But in order to be my fuck up (or my win) first I need to be shown an option and take a conscious decision. Personally I think that America is great, most of you guys are pretty chill and while there are some problems in some areas of your society I think mostly come down to people not having options out of poverty. I used to talk to people there and they ask me how much did I pay form my engineering degree and when I told them that I didn't pay anything in all the 6 years I study at my university they couldn't believe me. Sure It may not may be the MIT but it was good enough to get me started on the working force with a decent wage and start working for international companies. Sometimes you don't need to offer the best or nothing to the most "unprivileged" people and just give them something "good enough".
69794856
eventually technology will disintegrate society...
correct! we can already see this process in our own lifetimes and it will continue to accelerate into the future
great thread pol, enjoyed this debate
>>69795253
>Every election is consent to the system. Every single one.
This isn't so.
There is no way to not consent to ANY government by participating in an election.
If you could vote "None of the above" you could have a point, but we can't.
Abstaining is not the same as explicitly refusing to consent to being governed.
>>69787912
I think Hobbes and Payne have the answers you're looking for, but I don't know
>>69796377
>There is no way to not consent to ANY government by participating in an election.
Well, that's true.
So long as you participate, you consent.
>Abstaining is not the same as explicitly refusing to consent to being governed.
But not abstaining is the same as explicitly consenting.
If you want the "none of the above" option, make it happen. I'd agree that it would be better to have it. But it's not going to happen until the people stand up and tell their managers to fucking make it happen, or else.
>>69787912
It's the guns, don't brush away the ugly truth.
Just in some countries ruling elite took a calculator and realised the cheapest way of keeping your property is to let your subjects tell what they want themselves before other elites take over the angry mob and use it to appropriate your property and power. This is why democracies can only be plutocratic, the only elite that can ever consider peacefully giving away ruling power is one that has most of power as wealth and property, not the government position.
>>69787912
Aww did little anon just realize he was born a slave and is now frantically trying to find any alternate answer? cute.
>>69788247
>in a free society
>if you choose to remain
1. usa IS NOT a free society
2. You do not have the right to leave unless you are wealthy enough to obtain citizenship elsewhere. You will still be required to pay income tax to the US regardless of where you are in the world.
3. If you go into the amazon jungle paramilitary forces will mistake you as a drug produce or some shit and kill you.
