The Nonconsent of the Governed - EPautos - By eric (Text only)
The urban-rural problem waxes;
it is like a bad marriage and the only solution is a divorce. But while the
rural “man” would happily leave the marriage on reasonable terms and peaceably,
the urban “woman” will never allow
the “man” to leave.
It begs the question about consent of the governed –
the supposed basis for legitimate
government (assuming for the sake of discussion such a thing
The answer to this question pretty much
establishes the illegitimacy of
my home state of Virginia, for example, the rural (and geographic) majority of
the state does not consent
to being disarmed and criminalized by the government in Richmond – which
represents Richmond and Northern Virginia.
percent of the state’s counties oppose the slew of gun confiscation/criminalization
measures proposed and likely to be imposed upon them. The people of these rural
counties did not consent to any of this. And they have no say in any of
this – because the state government is controlled by the urban population
centers, whose concentrated numbers give them a virtual lock on the state’s
governing apparatus. The 90-plus percent geographic majority outside the urban
hives of Richmond and Northern Virginia can vote but it’s becoming as meaningless a
gesture as voting in the old Soviet Union, where there was one candidate on the
ballot – and no option to say no.
But Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”
can work the other way, too. Use their (stated) principles against them by
insisting they abide by them.
We do not consent.
Yet you impose.
This illegitimizes what you impose. We demand to be represented . . . by
people who represent us.
We will no longer accept being told what we must accept by you and the people who
represent only you.
This applies just as logically – and
morally – at the federal as well as the state level.
is a mockery of the concept of representation to assert that the 15,000
residents of a rural county such as mine are “represented” by two senators
elected by the millions who reside in Richmond and Northern Virginia and even
more risibly by a president elected by millions of people who reside in other
states and thousands of miles away.
sausage making, it does not bear examination.
And it all rests on the doublethinkian
fiction of consent of
Have any of you reading this ever been specifically asked whether you consent to
anything the government proposes to do to you? That question – if it were ever
posed – would have to be based on the possibility of not consenting
(without repercussion) else it is a parody of the concept of consent.
course, that question is never asked – and our answer is irrelevant. We are
told we’ve “consented” – by dint of the fact that other persons claim to
represent us – and that we have consented to what is done to us by dint of the
having the opportunity to vote for or against these so-called representatives.
But – if words have meaning –
representation must be specific, as in proxy power formally and freely given to
do a particular agreed-upon thing. To be told you will do the opposite of what you
wish to do – or wish not to do – by your “representative” is the
oxymoronization of the very concept of representation. The defining essence of
the thing is the reverse; the representative does as you command; he does not
least, not if you have consented to
be represented by him.
of course, none of us has consented to. It is implied, assumed – and imposed without our
The fiction of representative government – and of consent –
would be more believable if it were more local. If people in rural areas were
in fact represented by the people who lived in those areas – and no one else. This goes
just the same for those who live in urban areas.
too, have every right to be represented by those who represent their interests
– freely consented to. If the people of Richmond and Northern Virginia consent
to being disarmed, it is their right to disarm themselves.
they have no right to
bully people whom they manifestly do not represent solely by dint of their
concentrated numbers. And their effrontery in asserting that the bullied
have “consented” to
this is a species of lunacy once found only in asylums for the criminally
Who now “govern” us
without consent and with contempt for the very idea of representation.
Why do we tolerate it?
That’s another question
well worth answering.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything
else? Click on the “ask Eric”link and send
If you like
what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.