Either ‘the government’ is composed of individual people or not.
In order to be a part of this group, THEY need to either consent or they do not.
If they are, they are either bound by the law, before they become the government, or they are not.
If they are, then they are bound by the idea of equality before the law, and therefore need the consent of those they govern. If they do not need consent, then they are not equal to those they are governing, and thus have abandoned the rule of law.
If they are bound by the law and we are all equal before the law, their authority over you, can only come from YOU, by you consenting to their governance. Simply put, I have no right to govern you without your consent, not directly or by proxy or representative. The same is true in reverse.
Since YOU are the source of their authority, they can only have as much power and authority as YOU transfer to them.
If you personally do not have the authority to govern me directly, you cannot empower someone else to do so on your behalf. The nature of their authority is limited by the source. Since you are the source of their power, and you have no natural and inherent authority to govern another without consent, then neither do your representatives.
You do have the right and power to consent to someone else governing you and acting as your representative or agent, neither of us however have the right or power to do so on behalf of the other. I cannot hire someone to be your agent or representative without your consent, and neither can you for me.
Do YOU understand the government is in fact composed of people, all of whom are bound by the law, and as such, their ability to even call themselves ‘the government’ requires the consent of those they govern? Or do you claim that the government is not composed of people, or if so those people are not bound by the law, and as such can act as someone’s representative without their consent?
If you like so many here refuse to even examine using logic and reason the source, nature and limits of the authority the people in the government have, then to you, ‘the government’ might seem to be some magical creature with unlimited powers. You may see them as the source of law, instead of people using law to act as your representatives, and establish agreements, compacts and contracts which then become quasi-law to you, in the exact same fashion as if you had agreed yourself. If you enter into a contract with someone else, and I do not, am I bound by the terms of that contract? What if you and another do so? Will I then be bound? What about if everyone in a town decides to enter into a contract. Can they claim that the terms of the contract affect those who are not a party to it? When you answer, if you do, do not abandon contract law, ok?
Some may argue that its all about numbers, and if a sufficient number of people agree to be represented, then so too does everyone else in a specific geographical area. This however runs contrary to the law. And it can be tested and proven. Let us look at 3 people, where one is a woman. The two guys claim that said woman is a part of their group, even though she does not consent, merely because she lives in the same building. None of them own the building, and all are merely temporary tenants. Just like the earth. She wants nothing to do with them, yet they insist she is a part of their group, for no other reason then where she lives. They hold a vote, which she could take part in if she wants, but she chooses not to. They decide all members of their group will meet for an orgy, and force the woman to partake. They impose themselves upon her. Was it a lawful action, because they voted, and the majority agreed, and she had no say in whether she was a part of their group? Or are they two rapists who broke the law? You can’t have it both ways. If it is unlawful for two to impose upon one in this example, even when they have a clear majority, then it would be just as unlawful for 200 to do so. Or 2000. Or two million. And it would be equally unlawful if instead of physically imposing their will, they were instead taxing her, or telling her how to live. If she didn’t consent to being part of their group, their votes have no effect upon her, and they have no right to claim she is a part of their group because of where she lives. Unless of course you would like to tell me how many men have to vote before their rape of one woman becomes lawful. Will 12 do it? Ask your mom how many men would have to rape her before their actions became lawful.
So to determine if an infinite number of people can lawfully impose their will upon even ONE individual without consent, look at a situation with only three people. The position of some here is that if enough decide they want to do something, then it is lawful.
When you use the term ‘the government’ you disempower yourself, by closing your eyes to the fact that it is composed of people, all of whom are bound by the law, and that means they can’t represent you without your consent, and without that representation, they are not your government.
Here is a final test. Either I can be your representative without your consent, and sell your property for you without your agreement, keeping half of the value for my representative services, or I cannot. If I cannot, then the people in the government simply are not your representative or ‘the government’ without your consent either.
Why would anyone take the position you have, and claim that someone else can be your representative and thus your government, without your consent? Why would anyone claim that they are a part of some group regardless of their consent? I see only one answer: FEAR.
Also if someone can act as agent or representative without consent and do so lawfully, why is in in court, proof of consent to act as agent is so vital? According to the court, there is no agency or representation without the consent of both parties. So if you think you can act as agent, or representative without consent, or that those you hire can do so, take it up with a court of law, and prove that you can. Yours is the initial and affirmative claim, mine is the one disputing or denying that ability. So prove it, or accept that your claim of ability to do so has failed. If however you succeed, you are empowering me to act as your agent or representative without your consent. Is that what you would like to accomplish?
Many here point to the actions of the people in the government, and having imbued them with unlimited power claim that they can do no wrong, as they make the law and can change it at will. However all they can change is the terms of a contract, they cannot change contract law. And when I claim that I do not consent to the terms of their contract (their rules) the most ignorant here claim that if I do not want to accept their rules (the terms of their contract) they can refuse ‘my rules’ which is actually contract law. They fail to distinguish between contract law and the terms of a contract. So they end up claiming they can impose the terms of their contract, by rejecting contract law. However you cannot have a contract, nor impose the terms thereof without contract law. It is idiocy to me to suggest otherwise. Do you agree, or do you claim I can impose the terms of a contract which you do not consent to, by rejecting contract law? (Here is a contract and if you accept it you agree to sell me your car for $1. If you refuse it, I can reject contract law entirely, because you did not agree to my terms, and then you still must sell me your car for $1.) That is the position advocated by one and defended here by so many. Do you agree with it or do you also see it as idiocy?
Is it your position that I can impose the terms of a contract upon you, even though you are not a party to that contract, by rejecting contract law? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Your argument and the one presented here so often seems to be:
They are the government because they have power and they have power because they are the government. Do you not see that as circular logic? Let us not examine the source, nature or limits of their power, lets just assume they can do anything, and we must do whatever they tell us, mostly because they have a well armed group of thugs willing to unquestioningly do what they say. This to some is ‘the law’. This is what the majority of the people here seem to think. “It is not unlawful, because they are doing it, though if anyone else did so, it would be.” I see it as an abandonment of the law, by those we entrusted to protect and serve it. And even though history is rife with examples of this, and human nature seems to enable and demand it, and famous books written with this as the main theme, when we point out it seems to be happening in the here and now, we are labelled and dismissed as conspiracy theorists, and freeloaders. Yet it has happened repeatedly through out history, and in fact seems to be a fundamental aspect of human nature. Not only is it not hard to believe that such a situation could develop, a basic examination of our global situation shows it is happening. People in Canada and the U.S.A. are going hungry, struggling to make ends meet, dealing with unjust and inequitable financial burdens, all the while their governments can find plenty of money to give to those who make high tech bombs in order to drop them on those who dress differently on the other side of the planet. And so few of the hungry and struggling people agree or consent to these actions. Give them a choice between taking that money and using it for the betterment of their own lives and communities, or using it to destroy those of others, and see what they say.
