Happy Secession Day!

The declaration of independence was a legal document declaring that the several sovereign and independent states, based on the laws of natural fundamental rights were seceding from their government.

its a myth ! lol

don't visit the ER today folks .... unless you have a dark sense of humor

sudden valley gunner said:

The declaration of independence was a legal document declaring that the several sovereign and independent states, based on the laws of natural fundamental rights were seceding from their government.

Click to expand...

Thank you! And, you sir!


Now, we (Americans) just need to finish the Revolution--peacefully. Here's a little proselytizing--a few recent posts by me in other threads:

==========

The entire legitimacy of the American Revolution rests on principles given in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Rights. Equality. Consent of the governed. A little illumination of a crucial point: if you and I are equal, then I have no standing to govern or rule you unless you consent to it.

No government in this country has ever abided by those principles. Equality necessitates consent. Without consent the government--any government--is illegitimate. Consent of the governed is the crucial justification that legitimized the break from England. Well, that didn't apply just to England; it also applies to every government since the break with England. That is to say, if the break from England was legitimate, then the only way successive governments here could maintain legitimacy was to abide the same principles. If they didn't (they didn't) then the immediate state governments were illegitimate and the creature they made, the federal government, were and are all illegitimate.

Permit me to dwell a moment longer on consent of the governed. The way it is traditionally taught, there is a carefully engineered disconnect between the written principle and practice. "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" reads the Declaration. But, its never been used to mean the consent of each and every individual who is being governed. It has always been perverted to mean consent of some of the people. The proof is in the pudding. Can you withdraw your consent and the government leave you alone? Of course not. Government won't allow it. In order to squeeze some faux legitimacy from the principle, they have to pretend that "the people" means less than everybody. They have to pretend that "the people" means society in general, and carefully avoid discussing the individual person. But, the clue to the lie is in the earlier phrase about all men being created equal--that is clearly, unequivocally, unarguably talking about individuals. Individuals are equal. And, if all are equals, none can rule another without his consent. Consent is individual. It must be. It can't be any other way.

So, how do we change things? The simplest, and perhaps fastest and easiest, is to educate people on the points I mentioned above. The Achilles Heel of the generalized consent lie is this: its currently based on the idea that if 51% or more of the governed want something, then its legitimate. Will of the majority. Well, if a majority withdraw their consent, the government is instantly illegitimate--even by its own lying interpretation of generalized consent.

What we're talking about here is the classic parliamentary vote of no confidence writ large. If a majority of the people in this country, or even in a state, or even in a municipality, were to vote "consent not granted", that government is instantly illegitimate by their own standards. No insurrection, rebellion, or revolution needed.

What would happen if during a statewide election or federal election if 51% of the voters wrote in "consent withheld"? You wouldn't even need a referendum for this. No special vote. Just write it boldly across the ballot.

In the meantime, get busy figuring out what to erect in its place when the illegitimate government based on a generalized interpretation of consent comes down.

One way to look at this is to say that the American Revolution never quite achieved its ends. It never really achieved government by consent of the governed, not too unlike its failure to achieve equality for the slaves. Now its time to finish the American Revolution.

===================

Eye95 objected to that post, so I made a reply. Sorry if things are a little disjointed; I guess I could write a thesis on consent and hang it all together better. Maybe I will later. Here's the reply to Eye's objection:

Ummm. Were you going to address the equality thing I expressly pointed out?

Also, your comment is tautological. "The way it has been is the way it is." Further, even if your notion of generalized consent were true (which I do not concede), that does not mean that was the correct interpretation, or that it has to stay that way.

Your rapist argument falls short--there is nothing that says you can't get together with like-minded individuals and form a government to govern yourselves, and then arrest and try murderers, etc., under the principle of self-defense and defense of others. Just don't slop your government over onto me.

And, what's the point of even mentioning consent if you're not willing to let anybody unconsent? You're not willing to let an individual unconsent to be governed. You're certainly not willing to let a larger number, a minority, a social abstract, unconsent. Under your interpretation, the whole idea of consent is a joke. Essentially, your approach necessarily includes the idea, "We're going to govern (sic for rule) you. And, we're going to take your consent as implied. Oh, and by the way, having invented your non-existent consent for you, we're not going to let you unconsent."

In a society of equals, even a majority is insufficient--you just have a large number of people who are still my equals (and yours). Those people do not magically aquire legitimacy to rule simply by attaining 51%. Only if I consent to be ruled by the representatives of 51%, would it be legitimate for them to rule me.

I do not consent. I've seen through the veil. I've penetrated the lie. I will not pretend that equals somehow magically aquire legitimacy to rule me without my consent just because they achieve a majority. Nor, will I arrogantly maintain the fiction that I can rule you just because I happen to be in a majority.

I do not consent.

Thank you Citizen and great post! I too do not consent.

Along these lines from Lysander Spooner .....
"This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now. It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist, and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it."

sudden valley gunner said:

Thank you Citizen and great post! I too do not consent.

Along these lines from Lysander Spooner .....
"This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now. It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist, and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it."

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder. I knew he had dissassembled the faux consent. I recall his example about nobody ever signing a declaration of consent, and that the lack of such a signed declaration would be laughed out of any court, as, for example, asking a court to enforce a contract that was never signed.

Maybe I was a bit more influenced by his writings than I thought.