Days 67-70 - What's In a Contract?

The most common reason given to invalidate my claim that I am currently a slave seems to be the fact that I do not deny having once signed a piece of paper that said I agreed to work for the "Navy" for 8 years (5 years "active," 3 "inactive"). If you were unaware, I publicly decried this tyranny in Days 60-64, which was a blog that included my rebuttal to the "Investigating Officer," a paper copy of which is also currently circulating among those who identify themselves as my "Chain of Command."

To argue that the manner in which I'm presently forced to labor under the threat of imprisonment is not slavery simply because I once signed a sheet of paper is to pretend that it is possible to transfer one's self-ownership (or at least, to rent it). It is an easily observable fact that, while alive, you cannot allow anyone else to animate your body and use it in place of you. Simply put, self-ownership is an absolutely inalienable right; you cannot be separated from your right to internally control your own body. Even in slavery then, a person cannot rightly be said to be the property of someone else, but only a forced laborer on that individual's behalf.

The question then becomes, can a person ever consent to being forced to labor? This is, of course, inherently contradictory because force is an action initiated against someone in the absence of consent. For example, a woman cannot consent to be raped, for then it would not be rape, but consensual sex. With this truth in mind, who would argue that if a woman were to sign a contract saying she would have sex with a man whenever he wanted for the next five years, that man would then be justified in having sex with her even after the woman began to protest and say that she no longer wanted to have sex with him? Who would defend the man saying, "Well, she voluntarily signed a contract. Therefore, it's consensual sex, and she has no grounds for complaint. After all, nobody forced her to sign the contract."

Hopefully nobody would make this argument, and yet this same logic has repeatedly been the rationale given to me for why it is right that I be forced to continue working for the organization known as the "United States Navy." What is different? For both the hypothetical woman and myself, we signed pieces of paper agreeing to engage in certain behavior at a future point in time. At a later point, we both no longer desire to perform the previously agreed to behavior. If the previous logic would not be applied to a woman who promised she would engage in sex, why then is the argument applied to me? How is it right for others to force me to act against my will? The principles involved are the same; the only difference is the promised action.

Additionally, I suspect that not only would the hypothetical man be generally condemned for forcing the woman to fulfill her "contract," but the very piece of paper that the woman signed would be considered invalid and barbaric, certainly not a binding contract. Why then are "enlistment contracts" considered to be anything different? They are surely nothing more than promises of future action, just as the hypothetical woman's contract was such a promise.

Whether or not such "contracts" involve the transfer of benefits to the individual making the promise of future labor is irrelevant. Ultimately, the reason such "contracts" are not valid is that no person can alienate her or his right of self-ownership in the present, let alone can they rightly contract to do so in the future.

I don't mean to imply that there are no such things as promises. I do mean to emphasize that it is most definitely wrong to initiate the use of force against people simply for breaking a promise. With these clarifications in mind, the natural question arises as to how one differentiates between a contract and a promise. The answer is based on whether or not there was an exchange of property.

A promise is a statement of intended future action; a contract involves a real-time exchange of property. In his book, Ethics of Liberty (available free online), Murray Rothbard makes the following critical specifications regarding the nature of contracts:

“Unfortunately, many libertarians devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.” (page 131)

From this, I believe that if I were to break my "contract" with the Navy (something I don’t intend to do), it would not result in the implicit theft of any property. The Navy has not given me bonuses, advanced pay, or any fringe benefits such as a car, or a vacation home in the Hamptons, which could rightly be considered property and understood to be in exchange for my agreed upon future labor.

Each month that I work, more money that was stolen from other people is deposited into my bank account. Make no mistake, this is not a voluntary exchange (either between myself or the people from whom the money is expropriated), but it does occur in the present. Hypothetically, if I were to fail in fulfilling my contract by no longer laboring or reporting for duty, there would not only be a lack of moral or ethical grounds for imprisonment, but there would also be no legitimate reason to attempt to extract any type of repayment for my failure.

As to the pragmatic question of how the "military" could continue to operate without enslaving people to it, that's easy: it couldn't, and so it would cease to exist. Thus would end yet another form of slavery, and liberty-loving people everywhere would undoubtedly cry, "Good riddance!" No other employer forces people to continue to work for them under the threat of imprisonment. In these other industries that don't force people to labor, one’s reputation becomes immensely more important. Going back to an analogy I've used in other blogs, if I were a baseball player who failed to live up to his contract, I would legitimately have to return any property that had already been transferred to me in exchange for my promised future labor. Worse, I would face the extremely forbidding prospect of trying to convince another ball team to extend me an offer that I really would keep this time.

As for my own future employment, I have little concern that I will fail to find work because of a tarnished reputation. Going forward, I'm confident that there are myriad individuals who will gladly exchange their property for my labor. These are the type of persons who are of such character that they acknowledge that it is definitely better not to persevere in wrongdoing, merely for the sake of keeping one’s word.

In conclusion, I did sign a piece of paper promising to work for those calling themselves the "Navy." But which is immoral: that I no longer want to live up to my word in this regard, or that those same people are threatening me with incarceration if I don't continue laboring for them?

*My role in the process of seeking discharge as a conscientious objector ended when I filed my rebuttal last week. From this point forward, I'm simply waiting for a decision as to whether or not my "request" will be granted. Given this new set of circumstances, I expect that there will be few, if any, progress reports to give until a decision is made.

In the meantime, I intend to cut back to posting only on a weekly basis. Hopefully, this reduction in quantity will result in higher quality content that more effectively dispels the deadly memes that justify war. Of course, if an urgent issue develops, I won't hesitate to keep you apprised via a midweek blog.

Thanks for reading, and please, keep questioning.

Daniel

Days 42-46 - Leave! And the Tyrant

This post is a little late in coming, partly from celebratory reasons and partly for an unfortunate one. First, I am officially on leave (a temporary respite from my forced labor) for the next 9 days. In addition to a much needed chance to relax, this will hopefully afford me the opportunity to catch up on my backlog of email and unposted responses to blog comments.

But first, back to my original explanation. Over the weekend, I participated in my brother's wedding and the wonderful celebration that followed. It was definitely a joyous occasion, and I very much appreciated it as a welcome change to the bureaucratic ordeal of trying to severe my ties with the military. That was a definite plus.

The unrelated downside began on Monday morning when my wife, Heather, complained of not feeling well. We initially chalked it up to the exhaustion of the previous two days having included a bachelorette party, bridesmaid duties, and childcare, all culminating in an unusually late night of merrymaking on Sunday. It wasn't until her symptoms worsened to mirror those that I had experienced three days earlier that we finally made the connection that she had caught my stomach flu. Blech. Literally.

Thankfully, after 16 hours of intermittently interrupted rest, Heather is feeling much better. That said, apart from the above narrative of why I'm late in blogging, today's post will consist of a parable. Although not claimed to be told by any deity, I still hope that you'll find it insightful.

"A man living alone answers a knock at the door. When he opens it, he sees in the doorway the powerful body, the cruel face, of The Tyrant. The Tyrant asks, "Will you submit?" The man does not reply. He steps aside. The Tyrant enters and establishes himself in the man's house. The man serves him for years. Then The Tyrant becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man wraps the body, opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to his house, closes the door behind him, and says firmly, "No."

You can read this summary of the fable told by German playwright Bertolt Brecht in context as part of Howard Zinn's book Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice. The link will take you to the free "google books" page where I found it.

Although many questions jump to mind from this story, I'm curious to learn if you think the man's actions constituted consent to be governed by The Tyrant. After all, the man did step aside and serve The Tyrant for years.

What if the man lived in a cluster of houses where 6 out of the 10 homeowners, not including the man, voted to make The Tyrant their Mayor. This surely would mean that the man consented to be governed by The Tyrant, right? Remember, if the man didn't want to be ruled by The Tyrant he could abandon his personal property and leave. Surely this "freedom" afforded to the man would make it justified, no?

Days 40 & 41 - Isn't it obvious?

In opening the hearing, the "investigating officer" (IO), set out the purpose as follows:

IO: First of all, just start out the purpose of this hearing is to see whether or not your beliefs qualify as conscientious objector as defined by MILPERSMAN 1900 020. Additionally it’s also to test the depth and sincerity of your beliefs.

and,

IO: The standard which I’m operating by today is clear and convincing evidence that you are sincere in your belief and that your belief qualifies as conscientious objector.

The hearing was commenced with these and a few other administrative remarks from the IO. After more than 2.5 hours of hearing detailed explanations from myself and my witnesses as to how significantly I've changed since joining the Navy, and how frustrating it has been for me to try and cope with being a part of an organization that I believe exists for an immoral purpose, I was taken aback by the first question the IO asked of me. Bear in mind, I am already in a non-combatant position, and thus had explicitly filed my CO request as one for the purpose of discharge. Nonetheless, this was the first question I received:

IO: First question is why didn’t you just apply to be a non-combatant status, I mean looking at your service record you only have a year left on your contract.

As I already said, and as the IO already knew, I'm currently in a non-combatant position, therefore, I completely fail to see why this question was asked. Admittedly, there is the possibility that a military member can request CO status and remain in the armed forces as a non-combatant, but this typically involves transfer to the "Hospital Corps" of which I'm already a member. This is even documented in the first section of the first page of my application for CO status.

Secondly, it's a complete misnomer to say that I only have one year left on my "contract." As I've pointed out before, whenever anybody enlists, it's for an eight-year time period. Whatever portion is not designated as Active Duty is spent as a part of the Individual Ready Reserve. At any point during this time, one is eligible to be called back to Active Duty. Don't be fooled. If you, or someone you know says that they are only enlisting for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, they are wrong. The truth is that the military will exercise ownership over you for a minimum of 8 years.

As for myself, the Navy does not have me scheduled to be released until 2013, even though my Active Duty is set to expire in July of 2010. Much can happen in three years, and I don't want to labor a day longer for a group that exists to make war.

Despite all these relevant details, overall, I was shocked by what I felt was the insensitivity of the question. I had brought in my wife, who ended up in tears while explaining the effect that this has all had on me and on us, and in response the first question I'm indifferently asked is why I don't just continue since I only have a year left. How was I supposed to respond to that? By repeating the emotionally charged two and a half hours that had just transpired?

I wasn't sure where to go in answering, and I surely felt affronted by the nature of the question. After a definite pause, I made this attempt:

Me: The reason being . . . I feel like I’ve, I’ve answered to the effect that I mean it’s definitely having an emotional toll on me remaining as a part of the military given my change in belief, and I believe that there’s in some senses, by putting on the uniform every day that I do, there’s the implication of at least tacit consent to what it is that the military does and I no longer wish to give that consent.

This was met with the immediate follow-up:

IO: Do you believe you’re giving tacit consent to the military by being a citizen of the United States?

I didn't see this question coming either, and I was admittedly still somewhat off-kilter from the first question. However, after another pause, I found this one much easier to answer as it was more theoretical, and much less personal.

Me: I do not. In that I never requested citizenship in the United States. That’s something that was, that those who make up the United States government choose to do upon my birth in my specific geographic location. And that is a difference, than the fact that I did at one time very much want to be a part of the military. I no longer do, and so the fact that I explicitly expressed that desire to do that, and took action based on that, is different from my citizenship which I did nothing to request or obtain.

For being extemporaneously given, and somewhat poorly worded, I'd generally stand by my answer. I made a mistake in joining the military, and although I'm admittedly no longer a part of it by choice, I want to do everything in my power to disentangle myself from it. My citizenship on the other hand is not something for which I ever asked; it's merely something with which others have labeled me.

As always, I'm interested to hear what you think. What do you make of these questions? What of my answers? I'll aim to have more on Monday.

Day 32 - Consent, what consent?

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.

_________________________________________________

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.

Day 30 - The Nature of Government

As I had hoped, my reference to Roger Young’s article “The Blinding Fog of War” did elicit reader feedback. However, I’m now convinced that before I can address the platitude that “you only get to say what you do because someone else served and died so you could,” I must first establish precisely what I believe the nature of government to be.

Below I have quoted an email I received in response to Mr. Young’s article. It was this excerpt that specifically sparked the reply that follows it. My hope is that by presenting this in the same conversational format in which it was originally written, it will be more enjoyable and easy to read. At the same time I aim to provide a clear and thorough overview of what I understand to be the nature of government.

"First, I take issue with the label of "subject". I am not a voiceless, powerless serf but an armed (well, not yet, but soon) citizen who, with his fellow citizens, chooses people to represent him in government."

I definitely resonate with your sentiment, but I also believe that this is the exact idea that those in government wish to perpetuate. However, despite having felt a similar and wholehearted zeal for this perspective in times past, I now believe that these are not the true dynamics of the situation. I’m glad that you take issue with the label of “subject,” but I think your focus on the word distracts you from realizing that you’re being treated as a subject, even if you’re more often described as a citizen.

First you address the fact (or soon to be fact) that you are armed. I believe that this is (or will be) absolutely true, albeit practically irrelevant. Although I believe that the framers of the Constitution made an obvious and honest attempt to check the power of government via the 2nd Amendment, it little matters for multiple reasons. I imagine that you will agree that what is said in the Constitution does not now, and has not historically, restricted the actions of those called government. I believe that the possible examples of this are so numerous that even entire organizations of liberty-minded individuals such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are unable to fully exhaust the list of abuses.

Of more practical importance is the reality that even if you’re armed with a handgun, shotgun, or at best a semi-automatic rifle, your ability to either defend yourself or forcefully attempt to stop those in government from doing what they choose is effectively non-existent in comparison with the physical force that government is viewed as being able to legitimately level against you. Again, examples abound of how even the collective physical force exercised by modern day militias or even other state militaries are inconsequential compared with the deadly weaponry utilized by those who are collectively known as the government of the United States.

What consequence does your ownership of a firearm have on the dealings of the State? The State commands millions of individuals who daily walk around with such weapons at their waist. If anything, your having a gun poses a greater risk to your safety than if you didn’t. This is because those in power would find it easier to justify your death if you ever choose to use your gun in defense of your freedoms, as compared to the slightly more complicated task that would be involved in legitimizing your death if you were unarmed. If you think I’m exaggerating, tell me what you honestly think would happen if you didn’t pay your federal income tax, and then attempted to use your firearm to defend your freedom when men with guns came to try and physically apprehend you, as they eventually and undoubtedly would.

Ironically, while I’m here highlighting the absolute power of life and death over the entire world that is at the immediate disposal of those who are the American government (i.e. nuclear weapons), I actually think that their most effective means of subjecting the populace is the perception of legitimacy that you so candidly exemplified in your opening statement.

Now we get into the true nature of our subjugation to those who label themselves as government. This relationship, if that is even an appropriate use of the word, can best be characterized as that of master and slave. While this choice of words may strike you as extremely inflammatory I ask that you stick with me because I have a very logical and rational explanation for this assertion.

Before I say more, I wish to make absolutely clear that I’m neither implying nor stating that those people who currently live within the purported jurisdiction of the United States are more or less restricted in exercising their natural (or as you see them, God-given) rights. However, having fewer restrictions on one’s freedom than are imposed on others doesn’t mean that there is no cause for objection to the injustices of one’s own reality.

Simply put, the master-slave relationship, despite always being unjust, is not uniform in the degree of its abuses. This can easily be seen from America’s own brief history. Some masters, arguably a few of the “Founding Fathers,” are remembered as comparatively benign in exercising their claims to legitimately own other human beings, whereas the torturous artifacts that remain from other slaveholders speak to an entirely different level of inhumanity. That there are drastically different extents to which one can act immorally doesn’t make the less immoral act justified.

Returning to the present, I assert that you and I are both mere slaves to those who call themselves government. Even in this situation, the yoke is not equal, as I am less free to act without having my natural (or God-given) rights violated than you are. My answer to the likely retort that I am voluntarily more limited in my freedom, since I chose to be a member of the military, became an invalid argument the day I no longer wished to remain employed by the Navy but was still forced to labor under threat of imprisonment. Note that in this instance the common use of language accurately signifies that my action was done in the past tense. I “chose” to be in the military, that action is done; I no longer willingly choose to be in the military.

These specific delineations aside, I believe we’re both slaves according to the top definition result given by Google as “the state of being under the control of another person.” The extent of this control is not what is at issue in determining slavery. Whether or not we’re under the most lenient master-slave relationship could be rightfully debated, however, the fact that we are slaves, is to me, quite clear. If you think we’re not slaves by this or other similar definitions of the term, I would be eager to hear why you don’t think so.

No master can ever exercise total dominion over a slave; therefore, there exist only differing constraints that define such relationships. What follows is only a small selection of the many ways in which the people calling themselves government have made me a slave by controlling some of the most significant portions of my life through the threat of physical force.

I don’t deny that others have been treated worse and controlled to a greater degree; however, that truth does not make either of our present situations less restrictive. I have intentionally limited my examples to that which would be true even if I weren’t labeled an “Active Duty Sailor.” If you’re not controlled in these ways as well, I’m curious to hear how you have avoided such mistreatment.

As regards the individuals who call themselves government:

1. They control what substances I ingest into my body through drug regulation – legal and illegal, and food restrictions like those restricting access to raw milk

2. They control how much of my income I get to keep as per income tax laws

3. They control what property I own, how I can use it, and how much of it I can keep as evidenced by eminent domain, grass-cutting laws, property taxes, gun laws, automobile regulation, firecracker laws, aluminum bat laws and the regulation of almost any other piece of property imaginable

4. They control if and how I can labor, by requiring licenses as absurd as those regulating if I can cut someone else’s hair

5. They control whether or not I can cross the geographic boundaries in which they claim jurisdiction - thus if I don’t like it here, it’s a fallacy to say that I can freely leave and go elsewhere due to the exit tax among other reasons

Bear in mind that if I ever resist their control by exercising my own volition against their wishes, they will violate my natural (or God-given) rights by initiating physical force against me even if I have done nothing to infringe upon their natural (or God-given) rights or the natural (or God-given) rights of others. I understand that we disagree about whether humans are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” or if they possess them naturally, but I ask you, how could a just God that views humans as equal to each other ever desire for them to relate to each other in any form of a master-slave relationship?

I recognize that this response doesn’t address many of the other statements you made in your email, but I felt that it was more important to first establish what I believe is the true nature of any group (government or not) that uses force to impose its will on anyone else without the continuous consent of every individual involved. Perhaps you would consent to live under the current U.S. government, or maybe you would only acquiesce to a government that continuously abides by the Constitution. I hope you agree that whatever your preference, it wouldn’t make it right to force others to do the same.

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. As I understand you to be a fan of John Locke, I hope that when presented in this manner, you now see that there does not exist the “consent of the governed” in America today, and therefore, at the very least, those claiming to be the United States government are illegitimate and should rightfully be ignored.

*ADDENDUM (8:36 PM): My wife, Heather Lakemacher, made the following statement in regard to what she viewed as my possibly errant attribution to John Locke of an alternative concept of the consent of the governed.

"I think that Locke's idea of the consent of the governed still has collectivist roots. He understands it to be the consent of the majority. He doesn't carry his own ideas about the origin of property to their logical conclusion, that is, that only continuous individual consent could justify government."

Although it may be true that Locke conceptualized the consent of the governed only to be the consent of a majority, this concept provides no more legitimacy to the idea that any one individual or group of individuals can be justified in ruling anyone else. Therefore, if this was Locke's view, it inherently contradicts itself.