"The source of the government's authority is 'the consent of the governed.' ..." - Ayn Rand
Quote of the Day:
"The source of the government's authority is 'the consent of the governed.' This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens... " - Ayn Rand
"The source of the government's authority is 'the consent of the governed.' This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens... " - Ayn Rand
Good to hear from you. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZ...
Regards,
O.A.
.
"Useful idiots..."
It is nice to have a place to go where we do not have to suffer such idiots, even if it is just cyberspace.
Regards,
O.A.
A favorite quote from one of my favorite economist/philosophers:
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Regards,
O.A.
I think that if you read carefully, Ayn Rand being a master at choosing her words, you will notice that the consent gives government only the authority, i.e. the legitimacy, not the power. The source of the power and of the limits to that power is the Constitution and the laws enacted under it. Some call it a social contract, but I do not like the term now because it has been grossly abused by propagandists. If people do not pay attention, out of disinterest or out of ignorance (both, in my mind, illustrations of incompetence as citizens) they get the government that they deserve.
The discussion would require essay-length or book-length writing. Fat chance!
Instead, just brief highlights. Humans are rational animals, each a unique individual, unrepeatable and unlike any predecessors. Humans are also social animals. The group, the tribe or the nation are essential to the survival of the individuals. That sets up a situation where individuals with strengths in various traits become leaders, a necessary ingredient of the reality of human living. The balancing act that this makes necessary requires a setup that is realistic, functional and moral. Our Founding Fathers produced the best setup of that kind in the history of mankind. In the 200+ years since, the conditions and the development have changed in many ways. Among the changes was the rise of Marxist ideology. It has spread as a plague of sorts and, under variety of labels attempting to increase the appeal and disguise its nature, poisoned many minds, analogous to cancer. The adherents fail to see that it is an Utopia, contrary to human nature. They wish to change the human nature, speaking of "new man", "superman" or some such dream. In my opinion, in our lifetime, there were only two "potuses" [Or is it "poti"? Not "potty" for sure ;-)] who displayed, even while imperfect for sure, a decent combination of realistic, functioning, honest and courageous leadership: Truman and Reagan. I do not think that it is likely that the US will remain forever the best country for thriving and advancement of humans. Somewhere, some group of dedicated thinkers and leaders will come up with a different Constitution, more resilient to the corrupting degradations slowly destroying the foundation of our country. Knowing that I aspire to be an Objectivist, you know in which direction I would like to push.
There is much more that can be said about all this and I do not pretend to know enough to do the job even modestly well.
When you lament the divergence between WE and THEY, to me, you illustrate the evils of divisiveness. The balance between collective, individual and leader cannot be perfect, but we ought to be able to come very close to optimal. The key is, in my opinion, to achieve, through thorough and unbiased education, the best possible competency of each and every citizen.
Stay well!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
claim to legitimacy evaporate? And what of the argument (made by Spooner) that the government has no authority as to people who never consented because they were not around when the government was created? Do we give implied consent to an existing government simply because we are not in open revolt? Thoughts please.
We consent with our votes; those who did not vote have no influence. To the extent a country is not free, one's consent is meaningless.
1. Revolt, by arms if necessary
2. Withdraw (shrug, leave)
3. Stay and put up with it, thus consenting.
Those who stayed. Ayn Rand left. Her creation, Kira, unsuccessfully tried to leave also. Think of the meaning of that story.
If you do not consent, your choices are: rebel, leave or endure. Your life has only a limited time span, particularly if your ambitions are parenting and productivity. Thus, the urgency of the decision. The America of the past was such a magnet for "leavers". It has changed to become, gradually more and more, a magnet for "free riders" among the "arrivers". Don't you think?
Unfortunately, that doesn't ring completely correct. That we are constrained to the Choice Options effected by others kinda says it all, doesn't it?
The choice to Rebel against our Rulers (those who make the "laws") can be downright dangerous. The choice to "Leave" is impractical for most folks, and anyway, where might one "escape" to in this world of the The Governed? Thus most will simply "Endure", which is a crappy Choice indeed, is it not?
Thus our Consent is implied despite that most of the 7 billion people did not so consent, instead enduring the edicts of our ancestors but never ratified by we humans who deny their own sovereignty ant indeed, their very Right to Life.