The Consent of the Governed

The Consent Of The Governed And The Right To Form A New Government

By John Snyder

I did not always feel this way.  I started out as a Democrat, and voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 - the first presidential election I was eligible to vote for.  My allegiance to the Democratic Party did not last long, and by the next presidential election cycle I was solidly in the Republican camp.

In the early 2000s I had my first conversation with someone whose politics - I now understand - can only be described as libertarian.  I remember being asked unsettling questions:  generally, about why the government needed to have authority over us and why they needed to have a monopoly on this power.  

I was not able to give a satisfactory answer - I had never thought much about the issue previously.  The best I could do was to say something along the lines of "it’s always been this way" or "I can’t imagine life any other way" or "how will society function without a central government that has authority over us?"

These are not uncommon answers for someone who hasn't considered basic questions about the moral basis for authority.  My inability to imagine life any other way or to envision how a society might function in the absence of an authority only reflects my own shortcomings - my own lack of imagination and vision.

"Because it’s always been this way" is fatalism:  the idea that your future is preordained and you are, for the most part, powerless to do much about it.  These kinds of answers do not even begin to address the original question:  why does there need to be an authority?  Is it possible that coercive authority - that is, authority that is imposed on you against your will - can be abandoned as a fundamental principle of governance?

After much reading, thinking, and discussion on these questions over the last 10 years or so, I think I can say that the answer can be stated in one short sentence, one simple idea:  You have the right to be free.  It’s as simple as that.  Everything else is details.

You are not born into servitude and obligation as some would have you believe.  You might choose to serve your neighbor, and this is indeed a good thing.  But you cannot be forced to do so and you should not feel guilty for deciding not to do so.

You might choose to live under the authority of a government, but in order for this authority to be morally legitimate, your voluntary consent is required.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of government's 'just powers' as being derived from the consent of the governed.

We should be clear.  This is not the consent of the majority or the consent of a bureaucrat or the consent of elected representatives.  It is the consent of the governed, individual by individual. And this consent, even if given, can be rescinded at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Remember, you have the right to be free.

My friends, I write this to advocate for independence.  This may seem shocking to some but it should not be.  For it is in principle no different than deciding to quit a job that has become intolerable or leave a relationship that has become far more harmful than beneficial.

I do not claim that the problems besetting our present government cannot be solved with sufficient time and effort.  But I do claim that the burdens of our current government have become so oppressive as to make the alternative - independence - the preferred course of action.

Unlike the Founding Fathers in writing the Declaration of Independence, I see no need for a specific list of grievances.  It is sufficient that we merely state our desire to be independent.  We are not required to provide reasons, explanations or any justification.

Remember, you have the right to be free.  Your liberty is not something you have to ask for, it belongs to you.  It was given to you by your creator and cannot rightfully be taken away from you by any man, no matter the circumstances.

Let me be very clear as this is an important point.  I am not advocating for revolution, overthrow of the government or any violence of any kind.  I envision a political separation that is entirely peaceful and amicable.

Indeed, there are historical precedents for this type of separation.  The peaceful separation in 1993 of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia is perhaps the most recent example.  Observers have noted that relations between the two peoples are today better than they have ever been, and refer to the separation as the 'velvet divorce'.  There is free movement of people, capital and goods between the two countries and there are no checkpoints at the border of any kind.

Another example is the peaceful dissolution of Sweden and Norway in 1905.  The reigning king of the two lands at the time, Oscar II, who was a Swede, deserves most of the credit for this.  He declared that it would not be in the long term interests of Sweden to wage war on Norway to keep the kingdom together.  Before the Swedish parliament on June 21, 1905, he said, "However vital for the security of the Scandinavian peoples the union [of Sweden and Norway] is, it is not worth the sacrifices that the use of force would bring...."

And lastly, Scotland will vote this year, 2014, on whether it will remain as part of the United Kingdom or become an independent nation.  So even in our own time, peaceful political dissolution can occur and is occurring.

In a similar way I claim that there is no need for violence in our present circumstances. Independence can be achieved by simply ending our political allegiance to the existing powers and creating a new political structure, whatever form that may take.

Many will say that the burdens placed upon us by our government are necessary for the continuance of a civilized society, but I say to you that there is nothing civilized about force and coercion, which, in the absence of our voluntary consent, is the sole basis for our government’s rule over us.

Others will say that certain material concerns - food, shelter, clothing, health care, jobs and other basics of life - must necessarily come before individual liberty if we are to survive, that liberty is meaningless when faced with starvation.  I claim that physical survival is not the highest and most noble purpose of life.  I further claim that the freedom of each and every individual to peacefully pursue happiness in whatever manner he or she sees fit is more important and has a higher priority than any man's material needs, whatever they may be.

To quote the Roman poet Juvenal,

It is to be prayed that the mind be sound in a sound body.

Ask for a brave soul that lacks the fear of death,

Which places the length of life last among nature's blessings,

Which is able to bear whatever kind of sufferings,

Does not know anger, lusts for nothing and believes

The hardships and savage labors of Hercules better than

The satisfactions, feasts, and feather bed of an eastern king.

                                    Juvenal, Satires number 10:

                                    'Wrong Desire is the Source of Suffering'

Some will say that the majority has spoken, and desires certain things, and that our elected representatives are therefore morally justified in pursuing these objectives, forcefully if necessary.  I say there is nothing sacred about a majority - it's just an arbitrary number.  And it certainly does not provide any moral basis for forceful, coercive governance.

Nevertheless it is all well and good for the majority to elect rulers and peacefully pursue all that it desires - so long as everyone else is free to elect their own rulers and peacefully pursue all that they desire.

Such a system - where we can voluntarily choose our political relationships just like we would choose our personal or economic relationships - can work, and work very well, so long as the individual's right to choose is respected by all parties.  If it is not, we, the liberty loving people on this earth, those of us who hold the idea of individual liberty above all else, we have the right and the duty to secure for ourselves and for our descendants the blessings of liberty and to defend against all attempts at encroachment.

I leave you with a quote from a famous American statesman:

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.  This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.  Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.  Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Those words were spoken by Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 12, 1848, in reference to the secession of Texas from Mexico, and those words are as true today as they were then.  Remember, you have the right to be free.