This, we are told by America's Founders in the Declaration of Independence, is the basis for government's just powers; but do unjust governments rule absent the consent of the governed? Clearly not, as the most brutal tyrant can hardly remain in power absent the implied consent of his subjects, if only by their failure to revolt. Surely then, such consent as forms the basis of a free society must be imbued a particular quality, the most obvious candidate being justice; i.e., governments can only derive just powers from the just consent of the governed. Now I don't know that I can define "just consent" beyond its plain meaning, but perhaps we can get an idea from a few examples of unjust consent: empowering the government to steal from your fellow citizens on your behalf. empowering the government to codify glaring insanities (such as "gay marriage") into law. empowering, by acquiescence, the government to flout the Constitution to which it is rightly subject. Any objections?
I don't see the republican controlled legislature impeaching and removing any federal officials, so your representatives have consented on your behalf. You might want to hire new help if you are not happy with the performance of your staff.
The failure of people to revolt is not grounds for believing that the government has the consent of the people. It is difficult for ordinary citizens to revolt against a police state which has the population under surveillance at all times.
Pretty much knew this was going to be a thread from a right winger complaining about how equality under the law for gays rather than continuing to treat them as second class citizens goes against the concept of "consent of the governed". It's just not freedom if you can't use the government to treat people as less than yourself now is it!
Your position here is just plain NOT VALID. Look how many States fought SSM to the bitter end. Making it the law of the land doesn't change the FACT that it's sick and wrong. Shall we discuss abortion as well?
I'm all for social welfare, gay marriage and any other measures needed to ensure my safety and general support as a disabled citizen. And since in a Democratic Republic we can vote for people to give us what we want and further too many hands are in the till whose jobs depend on the social welfare and social justice gigs its not likely to change. Want things changed get enough people to vote for your position in local, state and Federal elections to matter over a long enough time to make the systematic changes needed.
This is just sad. People (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing because they can't use the force of government to treat others as second class citizens, and from the party that always talks about freedom no less! I find it absolutely pathetic that someone would fight against others being treated equally under the eyes of the law. I find it even worse that someone would think "consent of the governed" means they should be able to have the government treat the minority any way they want, and that if the minority is made equal to them, well then the government is broken somehow. It's a sick belief that has no place in a nation that prides itself as the "land of the free". If it wasn't for crazy hate though the right wing wouldn't have a platform.
Compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with tyranny no matter how slight or benevolent. We each have a moral responsibility to pick and choose which laws to obey balanced only by a practical responsibility to get away with it. Legal and illegal are absolutely no measure of right or wrong, just or unjust, moral or immoral, good or evil. Any wrong, injustice, immoral or evil thing one can think of has been, at times, in places, perfectly legal. The vast majority of evil done between men was, at the time, in the place, perfectly legal. Between complete compliance with law and complete disregard for law, complete disregard is, historically, by far the lesser of two evils.
Oh sure, this thread isn't about anything but homosexuals. People who think like this, who think that people who act like second class citizens - which is clearly what people who demand societal approbation for their perversions do - shouldn't be treated like second class citizens, obviously haven't got a clue about justice, and are therefore incapable of giving just consent. No, but it does make it lots easier for credulous culls to believe otherwise. So you're in favor of theft as long as it benefits you. Right? So by that you mean something other than "free". Right? How about future generations prospering? Is that likely, given the effect that such parasitism as you defend must eventually have on the host? Do be so kind as to spare me your advice. That's only because what passes for freedom in your mind is intellectually and morally bankrupt. How about pedophiles who have never been caught molesting children? Should they have the same access to elementary school teaching positions as anyone else?
Yeah so your crazy hate isn't a good basis for law. That's pretty much all I have to say here. The government is not lost just because you aren't being allowed to pass laws against other people living their lives in ways you may not agree with. Freedom in a free society isn't just freedom for you. If you can't accept that others will and should be free to do things that you may not agree with then you have no place in a free society.
Yes it is, because such failure is an expression of the will of the people. Doesn't matter, because there is always some degree of difficulty in dissent or revolution, depending on the degree to which the people have allowed themselves to become enslaved. To be sure. However, that doesn't imply freedom for everybody, because there are always some who are inclined to use their freedom to enslave others; and clearly any society which tolerates that must progress inexorably towards despotism.
