Foreign Intervention

[Dante]

The presence of consent is not sufficient to justify any form of government, there must also be the discovery and recognition of certain truths about human nature which culminate in the principle of political rights.

Would you argue that it is necessary (the presence of consent)?

[Marc K.]

And you should stick to using the word contract when talking about voluntary agreements between individuals.

Tanaka's point is well taken though since, in other threads, you have advocated for forced taxation, which of course violates the principle of Rights.

If the principle of Rights is the proper one upon which to found a government, then the implementation of that government cannot logically or morally violate said principle, else government is just a stolen concept.

[Marc K.]

It's a written, objective law. That's an agreement among individuals ... a contract.

Government is a contractual entity - it is not a given, does not exist a priori.

I really can't get past this.

Have you have gleaned a proper answer from others here?

Hopefully you have justified and integrated the concept of Rights, particularly with help from the writings of Ayn Rand. If you have, then this is the only concept you need with respect to forming a proper government. The term "social contract" should be discarded as it is self-contradictory, a stolen concept and an anti-concept. There is no need for it once you understand Rights. The term "social contract" only serves to confuse.

Rights are an objective requirement of human life in society -- a proper government recognizes this fact. Once you understand Rights it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with them or not, they may not by Right violate your Rights, even if they have the agreement of the rest of society to do so -- the worst they can do, by Right, is leave you alone.

[Grames]

Would you argue that it is necessary (the presence of consent)?

Yes. If it were not necessary that would mean intrinsicism would be true in politics somehow, even though we know it is not true in ethics. In order for something to be a value to a man in the proper Objectivist sense it must be both beneficial by the standard of life and the valuer has to understand that.

Criminals don't get to opt out of the law because the law is objective. A criminal's acts are what objectively determine his guilt or innocence, not his opinion of the law. The matter of jurisdiction, determining who is subject to which laws, is settled objectively with borders encompassing physical territory.

Consent and rights justify government, and law crafted by that government is justified in turn by rights and objectivity. The objectivity of the law removes the subjective element of individual consent. It is the constitutional law which creates a government that has the form of a contract, not the laws produced by that government.

[Dante]

Yes. If it were not necessary that would mean intrinsicism would be true in politics somehow, even though we know it is not true in ethics. In order for something to be a value to a man in the proper Objectivist sense it must be both beneficial by the standard of life and the valuer has to understand that.

Perhaps I should have included a clarifier as to "necessary for what." I agree that, by the objective nature of value, an object has to be consciously recognized as a value and pursued, in order to be valuable to the pursuer. However, I wasn't discussing conditions for the government to be valuable for everyone living under it, but rather conditions for the government to be morally legitimate. By its nature as a monopoly, these two things need not be the same. The fact that a citizen of a government doesn't hold law X as valuable does not mean that the law is morally illegitimate.

I would argue that consent of the citizens of a government is not a necessary condition for the government to be morally legitimate. Because of our nature, we are able to live human lives best under a political system which protects our individual rights from everyone, not just those who also choose to support that system. Thus, a proper political system cannot condition its fundamental purpose on the consent of everyone inside its region.

Now, I agree that some form of social decision-making is probably best when dealing with how to implement the principle of individual rights; for example, democratic elections of those entrusted with running the government for this purpose. However, I don't think this is enough to say that some sort of social contract is necessary for a legitimate government.

[Grames]

I would argue that consent of the citizens of a government is not a necessary condition for the government to be morally legitimate. Because of our nature, we are able to live human lives best under a political system which protects our individual rights from everyone, not just those who also choose to support that system. Thus, a proper political system cannot condition its fundamental purpose on the consent of everyone inside its region.

The existence of criminals or others who reject any social contract and do not consent to be governed is supposed to prevent other people from so consenting and organizing themselves?

This is not valid reasoning applied to any other contract. Given persons A, B, and C, if B and C contract with each and A doesn't like it A has no basis to object or interfere. A's consent is irrelevant.

Government and the laws it enforces are for the benefit of some people against others, victims against perpetrators. The perpetrators' consent or lack of consent counts for nothing, the actions taken against them are justified on the ultimate basis of the right of self defense. They are subject to retaliation because of where they committed their crime and who the victim was, objective criteria.

I agree that "a proper political system cannot condition its fundamental purpose on the consent of everyone inside its region", but it can and must be conditioned on the consent of someone (almost always most residents) or there would be no one to act to gain or keep government and the rule of law.

[2046]

The existence of criminals or others who reject any social contract and do not consent to be governed is supposed to prevent other people from so consenting and organizing themselves?

This is not valid reasoning applied to any other contract. Given persons A, B, and C, if B and C contract with each and A doesn't like it A has no basis to object or interfere. A's consent is irrelevant.

Although I'm sure you have some reason, I am still not quite clear on how this contract theory of goverment you present differs in basic principle from the theory of anarcho-capitalism.

Given the above at this point, simply saying "you are not allowed to enforce your own laws," amounts to a "it's different just because I say so!"

[Grames]

Given the above at this point, simply saying "you are not allowed to enforce your own laws," amounts to a "it's different just because I say so!"

Why?

[2046]

Why?

Because, under this theory, law is purchased contractually and:

Given persons A, B, and C, if B and C contract with each and A doesn't like it A has no basis to object or interfere. A's consent is irrelevant.

[Grames]

Because, under this theory, law is purchased contractually and:

"First come, first served."

Or:

"Fustest with the mostest."

Or:

"History is written by winners"

That there can be only one is no reason to conclude that the one doesn't exist either.

[Maximus]

I would argue that consent of the citizens of a government is not a necessary condition for the government to be morally legitimate. Because of our nature, we are able to live human lives best under a political system which protects our individual rights from everyone, not just those who also choose to support that system. Thus, a proper political system cannot condition its fundamental purpose on the consent of everyone inside its region.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Seems some dead old white guy disagrees.

[Tanaka]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Seems some dead old white guy disagrees.

And he's wrong on two counts. Rights are an objective fact, and so is the justness of a rights protecting government. Neither rights nor objective justice come from of any god or man's permission.

Whether the governed consent to the powers of a government is entirely irrelevant to whether those powers are just or unjust.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Tanaka

[Grames]

And he's wrong on two counts. Rights are an objective fact, and so is the justness of a rights protecting government. Neither rights nor objective justice come from of any god or man's permission.

Whether the governed consent to the powers of a government is entirely irrelevant to whether those powers are just or unjust.

Yes, this is all fine for as far as it goes. The point is that whether the governed consent to the powers of a government or not entirely determines whether that government and its powers exist or not. You are irrefutable as far as the justness goes. The news has lately been filled with examples of dictatorships faced with revolutions, so even those forms of government are ultimately conditioned on consent.

[Tanaka]

Yes, this is all fine for as far as it goes. The point is that whether the governed consent to the powers of a government or not entirely determines whether that government and its powers exist or not. You are irrefutable as far as the justness goes. The news has lately been filled with examples of dictatorships faced with revolutions, so even those forms of government are ultimately conditioned on consent.

I disagree that the existence of a government depends on "the consent of the governed". The word consent has a specific meaning. "Consent of the governed" means everyone voluntarily approves of something.

The existence of a government depends on sufficient support from the population, not everyone's consent. That doesn't even have to be consent from a majority, let alone "the governed" as a whole. It can for instance mean support from a strong minority and indifference or passivity from the rest. Their indifference or passivity does not constitute consent.

The claim of "consent from the governed" is often used to justify abusive government actions against individuals. Such justifications can be refuted only by pointing out that consent is not the same as the refusal or inability to remove the government. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between a government acting on "consent from the population" and a corporation acting on actual consent from its shareholders, for instance.

[softwareNerd]

I disagree that the existence of a government depends on "the consent of the governed".

I haven't been following along too closely, so I wonder if we should have a new thread for this topic.

I was recently reading about the French Physiocrats and one of the key debates of that time was about the basis upon which political laws are based. Rousseau claimed that societies were based on a "social contract", whereas the Physicocrats disagreed. They thought that societies were based on discovering the "natural order" which allows men to be in society. Where Rousseau claimed that the noble savage voluntarily gives up some freedoms to be a part of society, the Physiocrats thought this approach allowed the rationalization of any encroachment on freedom. This approach did not offer any "razor" by which to judge whether a law was right or wrong. They argued that instead of thinking laws are legitimate because they were socially-contracted, we must find out if they are legitimate by asking if they serve the primary purpose of law: which is to allow man to live in society with a minimal loss of freedom.

Just thought I'd mention that if someone would like to read up further.

Edited February 21, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Craig24]

The existence of a government depends on sufficient support from the population, not everyone's consent. That doesn't even have to be consent from a majority, let alone "the governed" as a whole. It can for instance mean support from a strong minority and indifference or passivity from the rest. Their indifference or passivity does not constitute consent.

It's useful to consult a dictionary. consent:

1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

2. Archaic . to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

–noun

3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.

4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

5. Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.

Indifference or passivity is acquiescence. I call it consent by default.

–noun

1. the act or condition of acquiescing or giving tacit assent; agreement or consent by silence or without objection; compliance (usually followed by to or in ): acquiescence to his boss's demands.

2. Law . such neglect to take legal proceedings for such a long time as to imply the abandonment of a right.

[Grames]

Their indifference or passivity does not constitute consent.

The claim of "consent from the governed" is often used to justify abusive government actions against individuals. Such justifications can be refuted only by pointing out that consent is not the same as the refusal or inability to remove the government. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between a government acting on "consent from the population" and a corporation acting on actual consent from its shareholders, for instance.

"To suffer evils while evils are sufferable" (a phrase from the Declaration), is consent. Indifference or passivity is consent as understood by both the American political philosophers of the founding era and Ayn Rand.

There is a way to differentiate between government action and private action. Government action is justified by whether it defends rights or not. Private action is the exercise and enjoyment of rights not the defense of them.

[Tanaka]

The running of a corporation is done by the consent of the shareholders. The consent of every shareholder. A government is not run by the consent of every citizen, the government often uses force against people who never consented to its existence.

[Grames]

The running of a corporation is done by the consent of the shareholders. The consent of every shareholder. A government is not run by the consent of every citizen, the government often uses force against people who never consented to its existence.

No, even shareholders vote when they make decisions, and some can lose the vote and thus be subjected to actions in their name without their explicit agreement. A shareholder can settle the issue of withdrawing his consent fully by selling his shares, otherwise he is agreeing to the outcome of the vote. Likewise a man withdraws his consent from a government by removing himself from residence, as physical location is what determines jurisdiction for governments.

[Grames]

Where Rousseau claimed that the noble savage voluntarily gives up some freedoms to be a part of society, the Physiocrats thought this approach allowed the rationalization of any encroachment on freedom. This approach did not offer any "razor" by which to judge whether a law was right or wrong. They argued that instead of thinking laws are legitimate because they were socially-contracted, we must find out if they are legitimate by asking if they serve the primary purpose of law: which is to allow man to live in society with a minimal loss of freedom.

I think both doctines are needed.

The doctrine of rights will not create a government out of thin air, but a social contract can.

A social contract alone has no a priori limitations on it, but the doctrine of rights can be the razor by which to judge whether a law is right or wrong.

[Marc K.]

Likewise a man withdraws his consent from a government by removing himself from residence, [...]

Not that I agree that a proper government takes the form of a "social contract" but even in your parlance there is another way a man can "withdraw his consent". It also is mentioned in the Declaration between the two phrases you have already quoted: ". . . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, . . ." Your above statement implies there is only one way to withdraw consent: by leaving.

Furthermore, there is another way a man can "withdraw his consent", it is a much more peaceful way but it is an avenue you have blocked him from taking: he can choose not to fund the government. You, of course, would forbid him this freedom and instead force him to fund the government, thereby destroying the foundation of any legitimate government. You would rather force a man to act against the judgement of his own mind than completely respect his Rights -- sounds pragmatically tyrannical to me.

[Marc K.]

Whether the governed consent to the powers of a government is entirely irrelevant to whether those powers are just or unjust.

Funny, because you refuted it earlier, here:

Consent and rights justify government,

You have contradicted yourself.

[Grames]

You have contradicted yourself.

Except I can't resist this. You really think "justify" and "justness" are concepts with the same referents? You embarrass yourself.

[Marc K.]

You really think "justify" and "justness" are concepts with the same referents?

Most certainly in the context of the three quotes I provided just, justness and justify refer to the same thing. When Tanaka used "consent" and "just" on 21 February it was in reference to your usage of "consent" and "justify" on 19 February. Then you acknowledge the irrefutability of his argument as far as "justness" is concerned. And what Tanaka said was: "Whether the governed consent to the powers of a government is entirely irrelevant to whether those powers are just or unjust." What this says is that "consent is irrelevant when determining what makes government just". You agreed with that and thus contradicted yourself, again.

When one asks:

- What justifies government?

or

- What makes government just?

The answer is the same to both and they refer to the same thing.

Now, it is possible in some other context that they could mean slightly, very slightly, different things -- and I'm sure you will exploit that fact since you like to play word games and have a penchant for forgetting what you wrote -- but in this instance they both refer to the same thing: the concept of "justice". (Look it up, it is in most of the Objectivist literature)

[Tanaka]

No, even shareholders vote when they make decisions, and some can lose the vote and thus be subjected to actions in their name without their explicit agreement. A shareholder can settle the issue of withdrawing his consent fully by selling his shares, otherwise he is agreeing to the outcome of the vote. Likewise a man withdraws his consent from a government by removing himself from residence, as physical location is what determines jurisdiction for governments.

The specific rules of the running of a corporation have nothing to do with the discussion. The point is that those rules were agreed to by all the owners of the corporation, their shares were sold to them on the condition that they agree to those rules.

That's not true for all the people in a geographic region. They did not agree to any contract, and since you do not own the country, you do not have the right to force them to agree to anything before they enter (or when they are born).

I can't think of a more clear and obvious way to refute your claims than this: whatever social contract you have in mind, I do not agree with it. You do not have my consent to hold me to any kind of contract. Before today, I wasn't aware of any contract, and now that you mentioned it I am refusing to agree to it. You do not have my consent. Is that a clear enough expression of my lack of consenting, or am I still a party to your imaginary contract?