One of my very best friends, Noah Marsh, provided the following comment to my post "The Nature of Government." I very much disagree with what Noah asserts, and after his remarks, I have included my response. I hope this exchange prompts you to try and answer for yourself if there is any morally legitimate basis for one individual or group to impose their will by force on another individual or group.
Without further adieu, Mr. Noah Marsh:
While I found the entire post thought provoking I will raise one point particularly to the fore:
In paragraph 24 (the final one before the Addendum)you say, "The sad reality is that nobody alive in 'America' today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway."
I disagree.
Every free person alive in "America" today is presented with the option to consent to be governed by those who do so anyway. There are two ways in which you actively provide consent to the government of America to govern you.
First, any person freely living in America chooses to be a denizen and a citizen of America. The free person living in America can choose to go to another country to live or to claim citizenship if he or she chooses. I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulations, etc. but I believe many people effectively excercised this "natural right" (?) in protest to the draft during the Vietnam War when they fled to Canada. By remaining in America and retaining your citizenship you consent to be governed according to their laws.
Second, a person living in obedience to the laws of the government acknowledges and provides consent for those laws to govern that person. Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent. During the civil rights movement one of the great catalysts for change in the laws was the peoples' refusal to abide by those laws which they did not consent to govern them. To continue living according to the objectionable law is to continue consenting to its legitimacy.
Everyday, every person who freely lives in America and follows the laws provides his or her consent to be governed by the American government. For those who wish to revoke their consent for a certain law(s), any continuing abiding by that (those) law(s) consists of their active and conscious consent.
Without further adieu, Mr. Noah Marsh:
_________________________________________________
While I found the entire post thought provoking I will raise one point particularly to the fore:
In paragraph 24 (the final one before the Addendum)you say, "The sad reality is that nobody alive in 'America' today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway."
I disagree.
Every free person alive in "America" today is presented with the option to consent to be governed by those who do so anyway. There are two ways in which you actively provide consent to the government of America to govern you.
First, any person freely living in America chooses to be a denizen and a citizen of America. The free person living in America can choose to go to another country to live or to claim citizenship if he or she chooses. I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulations, etc. but I believe many people effectively excercised this "natural right" (?) in protest to the draft during the Vietnam War when they fled to Canada. By remaining in America and retaining your citizenship you consent to be governed according to their laws.
Second, a person living in obedience to the laws of the government acknowledges and provides consent for those laws to govern that person. Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent. During the civil rights movement one of the great catalysts for change in the laws was the peoples' refusal to abide by those laws which they did not consent to govern them. To continue living according to the objectionable law is to continue consenting to its legitimacy.
Everyday, every person who freely lives in America and follows the laws provides his or her consent to be governed by the American government. For those who wish to revoke their consent for a certain law(s), any continuing abiding by that (those) law(s) consists of their active and conscious consent.
_________________________________________________
I don’t believe that Noah provides evidence to validate either of his stated reasons that “every free person” (?) in America “is presented with the option to consent to be governed.”
First, Noah contradicts his own claim that any “free person living in America can choose to go to another country,” when his next sentence says, “I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulation, etc.” If it’s “not always possible” because of governmental interference, then people cannot, by his own admission, “choose to go to another country.” This alone invalidates his first argument, but the example he gives is still worth analyzing for another reason.
Noah cites the successful flight of persons to Canada who otherwise would have been enslaved to the American military, as an example of how people are free to leave the self-claimed jurisdiction of those who call themselves the United States government. Highlighting the fact that many persons did succeed in leaving during that time does nothing to address what happened to the tens of thousands of those that did not leave.
Additionally, Noah didn’t comment about the unjust threat of either imprisonment or forced labor that was the reason why these people fled. For one individual or group to tell another individual or group that the first must fight in a war or be imprisoned, doesn’t equate to giving them a choice. The latter is an example of coercion, not freedom.
Secondly, Noah said in regard to government that, “Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent.” To accept a law is entirely different from abiding by it. A quick click of the mouse reveals the Microsoft Word synonyms for the word “accept” as: “believe, agree to, acknowledge, allow,” and most importantly the word “consent” is given as a synonym for accept. With this understanding of terms, I could not rightly disagree with Noah that yes, if someone does accept and abide by certain laws, she or he does obviously acknowledge the authority of those laws and that would consist of consent.
However, I believe that there is a vast difference between abiding by a law and consenting, accepting, or acknowledging the authority of that law. I would be extremely surprised to find anyone outside the KKK who asserted that the millions of darker-skinned persons that were deemed slaves by the laws of the United States, accepted, consented, and acknowledged the authority of these laws, even though they may have “abided” by those same laws in order to avoid even worse mistreatment. To again apply the draft-dodgers example, were those slaves that didn't run away free to leave the country as evidenced by the ability of other slaves to have successfully escaped? Also, did the these peoples obedience to the laws enslaving them equate to their consent to be enslaved?
The reality is that I “abide” by the unjust laws of those who call themselves government, despite my lack of consent, acceptance, or acknowledgment of their authority, because I wish to avoid the worse injustices that would undoubtedly be perpetrated against me if I did not.
If you think that I’m merely playing a game of semantics to generate a non-existent difference, ask yourself if you can honestly say that you’ve never “abided” by a law to which you didn’t agree. Applying this same rationale to the broader issue of the overall “consent of the governed,” is to recognize that people may follow the laws of those who would do them harm if they didn’t. However, such prudential action shouldn’t be misconstrued as consent.
I’ll conclude with what Noah wisely recognized in a previous comment as the imperfect, but useful, tool of an analogy. Imagine that a person with a gun approaches you and demands 50% of whatever money you have or you will be imprisoned. At this point, is it fair to say that you have the choice between paying the money and going to prison? Is it relevant to say that you are “free” to try and run away, and therefore, by not fleeing, you consent to whatever consequences come next? In both cases I answer with a resounding "No!"
The same resounding “No!” is applicable in real-life situations involving those individuals who call themselves government. Noah, you and I were born within the confines of what is commonly called the United States; we didn't choose to be alive within this specific geographic area, nor did we choose or consent to have others classify us as citizens. Both happened as an immediate result of our being born.
During high school when we each first got jobs, certain groups of people began taking a percentage of our income away from us. I believe you agree that the ends do not justify the means, thus making it irrelevant why this was done. What is crucial is that which was rightfully ours was taken from us. At this point, the key difference between us and the hypothetical person being mugged was that we had already had our property (income) extorted, and therefore, unlike the hypothetical person, we didn’t have the opportunity to flee prior to becoming a victim of theft.
The fact that, to my knowledge we both continue to pay income taxes, and neither of us has fled the country, does not signify that we have implicitly or explicitly consented to “be governed.” I believe that this point is incontestable, in that even if you have somehow offered your consent, I know that I have not.
Posts
