Not trying to "bait" you into an argument, Your response was correct I believe. I have recently started asking myself a ton of questions. My questions are along the lines of;
1. What makes the government legitimate? is it because they say they are (laws,) or because we say they are?
2. If it is because we say they are.... why is it we cannot take it back when things go south?
These are some of my thoughts, I am not trying to convince anyone I am wrong, or right, or plain crazy, I am however sourcing opinions and feedback when the opportunity presents itself, that is why I asked. Thanks for your time.
2. We cannot take it back because they are lying to us. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence borrowed heavily from John Locke's 1689
Second Treatise on Government. Recall the clause "...to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Well, if you can't withdraw your consent and opt-out of being governed, then government is not governing by consent. Also, where was your consent recorded? As in, where did you sign a contract to be governed by the fedgov or stategov? As in, where's the paperwork showing your voluntary and entirely consensual application to join the rest of the group who submitted to the laws, rules, and regulations of the government? So, you and I did not consent in the first place, nor can we withdraw our consent. So, no legitimacy.
The first clause of the constitution is a bald-faced lie. "We the people..." BS!! Only the people who wrote it, those who promoted it during the ratification period, and exactly and only those who voted to ratify it at the state level. Not "we the people", not by a long shot. Lots of people were opposed to the constitution. Ratification was a close-run thing. Rhode Island was the only state to submit the constitution to a state-wide referendum of all the voters--and they defeated it 11-1.
The pre-amble to the constitution also contains the clause "...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." Phffft! Another lie. They had no authority to bind successive generations. First they pretend "we the people" enacted the constitution, falsely portraying the authority to rule people who did not consent. Then they pretend they have the authority to extend that non-authority to successive generations. Who gave them that consent? Those successive generations they were binding weren't even born yet. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to (James Madison?) laid out some very cogent arguments as to why one generation cannot bind a later generation.
1. Nothing makes the government legitimate. Its not legitimate. No person can legitimately govern another without that other's consent. The whole theory of granted powers depends on it. That is to say, the so-called government only has the power it is granted. And, it cannot have any power that an individual does not have to give. No single person has the power to govern me. He's my equal. Nor, I the power to govern others. By no stretch of logic can an aggregation of people (majority) suddenly aquire authority. Such a majority would still only be a lot of individuals who still didn't have the power to rule over others unless those others consented.
Now, if forty or 300 million people wanted to form a government for their own protection, that's their right. If they want to transfer some of their authority and also consent to be governed that is their right. But, their authority stops with themselves. It cannot extend to one single person more until that person voluntarily joins their mutual-protection society organization called government. And, their authority over that person ends when he withdraws his consent.
The confusion and uncertainty stems from the mental gymnastics used by government, the power hungry, and control-seekers to maintain the lie. For example, majority rule with so-called restrictions to protect the minority (aka the Bill of Rights). "Quick, extoll the virtues of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Keep their minds focused there. Keep them arguing over whether this or that law is constitutional or whether an action violates the Bill of Rights. Keep distracting them so they never look squarely at the underlying premise of majority rule. Always mis-educate them about majority rule; best to do it while they're young so they accept it without question." Majority rule contains the false premise that somehow a majority's will is legitimate and can be extended to non-consenters just because they're the majority. It is literally just as arbitrary and baseless as a king claiming divine right.
Until the day when each and every individual who is governed gives his consent, can withdraw his consent, and can opt-out of being governed, government has no legitimacy.
It really is that simple. Just look it over thoroughly yourself. You'll find pretty quick which ideas about government fit and which don't. For example, delegated powers. Do I have the legitimate power to threaten you into paying me 30% of your income? No, of course not. Then, there is no way that I can delegate that non-existent power to another aka tax collection. Even if 51% of us agreed it was a good thing, we still couldn't delegate a power none of us legitimately had. Just because we are a majority does not suddenly legitimize it. Only if you first agreed/consented to pay whichever taxes were levied by the government would it be legitimate to tax you. The consent aspect aligns and organizes things very nicely. Anything else reduces to thugs bossing others around just because they want to, and victimizing them.
