Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed LMFAO!

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The establishment of MOB rule over the individual.


Democracy - We heard your wife is really hot so we took a vote and we get to have our way with your wife for an evening whether you consent or not.


So much for legitimate courts

So much for legitimate government

The constitution is a covenant between the people and the government in that the GOVERNMENT is regulated UNDER the constitution.


America - Screwed Glued and tatooed by the very people entrusted to guard our liberties!

 

I never consented for a SWAT raid on a dairy farm searching for, gasp, raw milk. Did you?

 

there are a lot of people out here who rah rah freedom, but how can they justify this?

As you pointed out we look around and things like that happen, the question is how? Is everyone in this country suffering from clinical doublethinkism?

Its like the stomp on peoples rights left and right and the people still sit back and claim they are free. I do not get it. whats up with that?

 

When I look at how our nation is governed, I can't help but think there's gotta be something better than this. Why bother to get the consent of the governed when they have no clue what's going on anyway, let alone know how society works? Can they really be expected to? We went from hereditary rule to democratic republics. Maybe the mob does better than the inbred king, but shouldn't the intelligent people be put in charge?

 

Except that knowing that, the majority will pass a rule that you cannot have your way with his wife, because the majority knows that such a rule could be used against their wives.

Why?

Could be, if that be our choice.

 

consent at the end of a barrel of a gun thats why




U.S. Supreme Court

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)


And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in the new States and the old ones, whether they consent to be bound by them or not.

how much clearer can it get?

 

Every form of Government results to force to enforce laws. What does that have to do with consent, courts, or legitimate government?

A lot clearer. Your argument if I understand it is that if a government uses force to enforce laws it is necessarily illegitimate, and the laws and government cannot be by the consent of the people.

I think you are confusing consent of the people with consent of the individual.

Our government governs by the consent of the people. Not by the consent of each individual. No government could exist by the latter condition.

 

Big part of an American tradition.

Here we have an innocent Black man who is well dressed and obviously someone who had been at work all day. He was attacked and lynched and justice was never done to the criminals who killed him:

 

so then if what you said is true, individual unalienable rights are purely imaginary concept and the MOBocracy can vote to rape your wife?

That does not strike me as a government of consent where it is by MOB consent, not individidual consent.

How do we get to the MOB without the individual that comprise the MOB?

How can you justify that disconnect?

 

what about the rights of the individual?

You just made a case purporting they do not exist and are not a consideration in law making!

How do you explain that?

 

Sure they could. Why would they do that? It is the fact that their wives might be next that prevents the majority from implementing such arbitrary rules.

Of course it is. It is the consent of the people, not consent of the individual.

No Govt could overperate based on consent of the individual.

Vote

What disconnect?

 

What about them?

I did no such thing.

Explain what?

The right of the individual is based upon (in a democratic form of government) rights that the majority assign to individuals.

The majority assigns rights to the individuals because the majority are made up of individuals.

 

yeh if you want to use the very most expansive meaning of the word right, however that does nothing to put anyone in a position to understand what they are getting in that process since it includes everything.

a better explanation would be to state what unalienable rights are and how that differs from these people made "rights".

they are like oil and water.

 

That is exactly what the majority did in the US in the Bill of Rights and constitution.

 

Until the majority believes it's found a legal/constitutional way to distinguish themselves from the guys who they want to take advantage of. By income, for example.

 

Except that the majority must realize that in America, land of opportunity where any average guy with hard work and preserverence can make it up in the ranks of wealth.

Unless that just isn't true anymore.

 

I think the majority do believe that (whether it's true or not). I also think the majority believe they will never make that trade, so feel they will be exempt from laws that take from "the rich."

 

I agree that when the majority feel they have no opportunity to participate in the rarified stratus of the rich, their positions become more precarious in a demoncracy.

But have no worry. In our system of bribery based politics, the rich can afford far more bribery than the masses.

 

Not sure who you're agreeing with. That's not what I said... and pretty much the opposite of what you said about opportunity as well.

 

Then I didn't understand your post.

 

what do you mean and how are you applying it?

 

I mean, in the constitution, the majority decided it was in everyone's best interests to protect certain rights of majorities.

That logically is what should happen in a democracy. You point out the fear of mob rule. Well, most folks in the majority worry about that too. Hence they make rules to provide for protections, or "rights" of individuals and the minority.

 

that sounds great on paper but we the people have never voted on even one amendment! how do you explain that away?

 

We did through our representatives who we voted for.

 

Ok so without a referendum (your vote) how did your representative know how to vote? I need to see how this puzzle fits together since they are voting all the time and they never ask me a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing? Maybe they read my mind?