
Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed - akbarnama
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/
======
Synaesthesia
This is why direct democracy would be a better model of government than
representative democracy. However it's a threat to the existing power
structure so don't expect to see it soon. We have the technology in place to
effect large scale democracy, say having referendums electronically via a
smartphone app.

~~~
nailer
The author still wouldn't approve of direct democracy either: they think all
democracy is non-consent, and do not recognise societal majority as a form of
consent. The author is arguing for anarchism, which generally doesn't scale
beyond one person. As soon as you have multiple people and they disagree, you
need some mechanism to fix the tie. This is obvious to most adult humans,
which is why I'm surprised the article made it to WP.

As the other poster notes with the example of Switzerland, the solution to
governments straying too far from the will of the people is more democracy,
rathe than abandoning the will of the people.

~~~
circlefavshape
> The author is arguing for anarchism, which generally doesn't scale beyond
> one person

Anarchism has been the default way of running the show for most of our
species's existence. Civilization is only 10 thousand years old. Seems to me
like it's population density rather than numbers that anarchism has trouble
with

~~~
nailer
> Civilization is only 10 thousand years old.

Tribal societies generally had leaders, decided by ability, combat, or other
means.

------
edent
> they chose him as the lesser of the evils put forward by a political system
> that they have little if any leverage over.

Bilge! You only need to look at the successes of fringe religious candidates
in parts of the USA to see that small groups can wield enormous leverage if
exercised correctly.

In most parts of the world, it's trivial to join a party / trade union /
action group / stand for election. If you cannot convince a few hundred people
to vote for you - perhaps it's _you_ who are wrong, not society.

~~~
blfr
Religious politicians in the US are _not_ successful in promoting religious
groups' goals. This may provide nice careers for politicians of repeating
appropriate slogans but: gay marriage has been legalized, small business
owners are even forced to cater to the ceremonies, new companies have to pay
for contraception, etc, etc.

~~~
edent
On the other hand, [creationism is taught in (some)
schools]([http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/03/crazy-
creationist-wins-big-in-texas-board-of-education-vote/)) and there are vast
parts of the country with [little or no access to reproductive health
clinics]([https://www.facebook.com/nationalabortionfederation/posts/12...](https://www.facebook.com/nationalabortionfederation/posts/1232854116742389)).

------
Booktrope
Consent of the governed does not mean, agreement of the governed to specific
measures. No does it mean majority rule, which can easily be tyranny of the
majority (possibly, the worst kind of tyranny, because it's possibly the
strongest kind). One can easily consent to something without actively
participating. The author of this oversimplified piece doesn't seem to even
acknowledge a category of decisions that people might consent to, even if they
disagree with them. It's obviously foolish to say that government is acting
without consent, if it makes decisions that you do not agree with, although
you are willing (and may even actively choose) to live under the system for
making decisions. Nor, of course, does consent always mean actively choosing;
it can mean accepting things. The concept of consent of the governed was
articulated most effectively by Locke, whose philosophy was a key inspiration
for the American revolution. To Locke, consent of the governed had nothing to
do with whether or not people agreed with specific laws. Rather, consent of
the governed was the foundation of civil society -- that is a society governed
by rules and laws. Locke identified the alternative as a state of war --
government by bare force, unconstrained by the rules of civil society. When
the consent of the governed is lost, it means that the people no longer accept
the legitimacy of the government (sometimes stated as: government has lost the
mandate of heaven, or some other revolutionary slogan). It means, change of
the form of government, not just the laws and not just the holders of power.
It usually doesn't come out well. But (rarely) it creates something new, and
better.

------
lumberjack
Libertarians to everyone else: "I will use my power and leverage to influence
you at will, but don't you dare use your power and leverage to influence me. I
don't consent to it."

~~~
UK-AL
What the hell are you on about? Libertarians definition freedom stops at the
point you start infringing on the freedom of others. It's a core concept. You
would not find a single libertarian who agrees with your statement.

They would probably stick to that concept more than any other ideology would.

~~~
edent
"I am scared to leave my house because you might shoot me."

Can a person controlling others with their intimidating behaviour? If so,
what's the Libertarian response to that?

Libertarianism is the rule of the power of individuals. Which is _great_ if
you're strong, skilled, healthy, respected, and/or have access to equipment.
For the rest of us, it's a dystopia.

~~~
UK-AL
Well if someone threating to shoot you, then yes obviously someone is
infringing on your liberty... so yes there would rules against that.

~~~
edent
"Threatening? No, sir! I just like walking down the street open-carrying my
AK47. And occasionally test firing it at wood-pigeons."

Incidentally - who makes the rules against threats? Who enforces them? Seems
like we would need a group of people to decide on these rules. But how should
we choose those people...?

~~~
UK-AL
"Threatening? No, sir! I just like walking down the street open-carrying my
AK47. And occasionally test firing it at wood-pigeons." \- That an excuse,
people try to make excuses with the current system to get away with things.
It's not exclusive libertarianism. You would get it under any system.

"Incidentally - who makes the rules against threats? Who enforces them? Seems
like we would need a group of people to decide on these rules. But how should
we choose those people...? "

There are millions of different versions libertarianism with different
solutions. Some with insurance, private police force that work for the
insurer.

Can't list them all.

I personally am a classical liberal, I don't advocate no government just that
it should be limited to law, order, military etc

------
millstone
To be sure, when Abraham Lincoln said "no man is good enough to govern another
man, without that other's consent," he was referring to owning slaves. The men
governed without consent were literal slaves; the governers were not
governments, but private citizens.

This is a really strange article. Look at its claim that "the exercise of
coercive power without consent is a bad thing." First of all, coercion means
without consent by definition; you can't have consent and coercion. Second,
most laws are about actions which affect other people. What does consent look
like there? You can't unilaterally refuse to consent to speed limits, because
that affects me by putting me at greater risk. You need my consent too. And if
we disagree?

It also refers to "nonconsensual government," implying there's such a thing as
"consensual government, and later references "a government that genuinely
derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." But it doesn't
explain what that would look like.

------
scotty79
States governments are just most recent and best invention in the field of
predictably and least harmfully exploiting people by people with physical
power. Earlier invention in the same field were warlords and mafia. If you
look at the World Wars you might be wondering if it's actually a progress but
in times of peace they are way more efficient and how else could they learn
that war between states is a bad thing until they tried few times.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

------
paulsutter
> You have no reasonable way of opting out of government rule. Governments
> control all the habitable land, and most of us don’t have the resources or
> even the legal permission to move elsewhere.

The quickest way to change the law is to board a plane. Yes it's difficult to
create a whole new country, but there are 200 readymade countries to choose
from.

(I'm surprised this is so controversial. I'm just saying individuals do have
some direct control over the laws that they are subject to).

~~~
parenthephobia
That isn't "opting-out of government rule", and it isn't so trivial to move to
another country _to live there_ as you imply.

~~~
XorNot
Yes it's almost like sharing the planet peacefully is hard and requires
compromise.

------
hwstar
We should keep the system in place that we have at the US federal level, but
add initiative, referendum, and recall. This allows the citizens to "correct"
the legislators, and allows more controversial laws to be passed which
legislatures typically avoid.

The only problem I see with this is keeping the moneyed special interests at
bay.

------
chipsy
This is the old "freedom/security" debate in the guise of interpersonal
consent. Governance has always involved coercion at the individual level,
because governments rule with force, and a certain amount of force is
necessary for order and security; without making that move to unify under some
law, a population gets mired in low-level disorders and disagreements. It can
be a really shitty Hammurabi-style eye-for-an-eye law, legitimize slavery,
rape, etc., but if it protects the interests of the ruling class and is not an
immediate threat for most of everyone else, it sticks. Thus, for thousands of
years, most people lived as peasants, and enjoyed equality and fraternity with
their immediate peers, but few freedoms around property, invention, travel, or
other such actions that might threaten harmony in society.

But the consent of the people does exist, _as a mass body_. It takes quite a
lot for a critical mass of them to decide that the government is no longer
legitimate and disorder would be preferable, but if they do, the government is
pushed into crisis. And when governments make breakthroughs, it's in the
moment of crisis where leadership is forced to either make a big concession or
be pulled down by the mob. In between crises, the status quo sticks and
politicians jockey for position within it instead.

What that never translates to is the individual who sticks out of the crowd,
arguing for change, getting special treatment. At all times, even in the era
of post-Enlightenment reason, they are viewed suspiciously, because good
enough is good enough, and they might just be another "bad guy"
(criminal/barbarian/spy/rebel/etc.) trying to pull a fast one. They get no
credit; as with business and innovators vs. fast followers, it's the people
who come afterwards, using more polished rhetoric and building existing small
movements into large ones, who tend to turn those ideas into reality.

