Your Consent Is Constantly Being Violated
Why do you accept that? (DN 1.6)
Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |
(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
Chapter 1: WHY
1.6 — Consent, Part 2
Throughout this chapter, we have been employing logic to derive and prove the basic principles of natural law:
No one has automatic authority over you.
The initiation of coercive force against you is morally impermissible.
You, and you alone, have dispositive decision-making authority over your own life, body, and being.
This next part, however, requires no such fancy reasoning:
If you are the sole architect of your own choices,
If no one else may impose force or authority upon you,
If you own yourself,
Then clearly…
Nothing may be done to you without your permission.
Let us call this the rule of consent, and state it a bit more formally:
Each person is a sovereign, rights-holding being who must not be subjected to any transaction or imposition of authority to which he does not explicitly consent.
Perhaps we can think of better wording, but that will certainly do as a starting point.
At first blush, one might consider including the notion that all “interactions” must be consensual, but that word is problematic. Someone asking you the time of day is an interaction to which you did not consent (explicitly or otherwise), but it is not an initiation of force. You do not have a right to not be asked a question. When asked, you may simply keep walking and refuse to reply. Rudeness is also not an initiation of force.
You also do not have a “right not to be offended,” because speech is not force. Whether or not something is an initiation of force is an essential component.
The word “transaction,” which includes the notion of an exchange, serves our purposes far better. An exchange carries the notion of some sort of enforceable expectation.
A transaction might be economic, requiring an exchange of property or labor. It might be personal, involving an exchange of affection or a surrender of a certain measure of bodily autonomy (sex, contact sports, hair cuts). It might involve the sharing of information or the use of one’s time. “Transaction,” in this sense, covers a broad range of human activities.
And with many such activities, consent makes all the difference:
With consent, it is lovemaking.
Without consent, it is rape.
With consent, it is a sparring match in a karate dojo.
Without consent, it is assault.
With consent, it is borrowing your cordless drill.
Without consent, it is theft.
With consent, it is a visit to the hair salon.
Without consent, it is some weirdo cutting off your hair while you sleep.
Consent only exists when you agree to do something or have something done to you. You know this. Everybody knows this. Heck, even plants know when they are being eaten, and they don’t like it. Consent is universal.
And yet, when it comes to organic human relationships, we also have a natural sense of nuance…
I frequently walk up to my wife and kiss the top of her head (I am significantly taller than she). We do not have to sign a contract before every kiss, because we know that our consent is ongoing. It is understood. Either party can withdraw that consent, but unless that happens, the relationship just proceeds organically.
No such nuance exists, or can exist, when it comes to the second element of our rule of consent: the imposition of authority. Government is in every way an initiation of violence, and you are not allowed to ask for a divorce.
Government subjects you to its rule without your explicit consent.
Government takes your money without your explicit consent.
Government initiates force upon you without your explicit consent, even if you have not first initiated force upon them or anyone else.
The rule of consent is so clear to all human beings that it does not even need to be explicitly stated as a formal rule. Everyone just knows it. And everyone knows when it has been violated. It is a foundational moral truth.
So please explain to me how a rule that is universally understood and applicable to all people is somehow not applicable to government.
If you have an answer, I’d love to hear it…
And if you have the ability to buy me a cup of coffee once a month, you can help me keep this ball rolling!
I will never understand why people don't care....people just sit back and do nothing until something affects them enough to get fired up about it (which by then it's usually something tragic). We must learn to operate in the private, out of their jurisdiction, stop consenting to institutions and self-proclaimed authorities that are immoral and thrive on force, manipulation, and theft. It's not ok that you must pay a "ruler" to live on earth. Take all that energy (time, money, thoughts, purchases, knowledge) and put it towards what you do want....as this quote says, "focus on building the new, not tearing down the old" and the old will crumble on its own because it is built on deceit.
It’s not just the government.
Utility companies are putting “smart meters” on your home. These are control devices, not “smart meters”. You can “opt out”, but you are penalized with an additional monthly charge that is 10-15% more than your utility usage. This is coercion. There’s no real choice, no way to choose an alternative supplier. The charge is arbitrary and capricious, and will ultimately be raised, as needed, to force compliance.
Over 50% of all homes now have them, and most people have no idea they can shut off, or reduce your usage at any time.
Of course it will be under the auspices of the “greater good”, just like the Covid lie.