[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "consent of the governed"
Rich Graves <[email protected]>
>You're taking this phrase out of context. What the Declaration said was:
true, I didn't put in the associated reasoning.
>1. There are certain universal human rights, like life, liberty, and
> property^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the pursuit of happiness.
>2. To protect these rights, people form governments. Only the baddest kid
> on the block can protect her own rights, and only if she never sleeps.
> The rest of us need the police.
I tend to define government more liberally in that it does not
merely exist to protect rights-- the 20th century saw a rise in
government that tried to be a social force. this may have failed,
but it does point out that people want a government to do more
than merely protect their rights. in other words, the 1776 definition
of government is reasonably slightly modified. government in its
essence is a form of organized human collaboration/cooperation imho.
it is a nervous system for a society.
>3. Ergo, government derives its just powers from the consent of the
> governed. I read this more as a conclusion than as a premise.
I think it is both. it is a conclusion of the reasoning and the
premise for government. if the government does not have the
consent of the governed, it is not a legitimate government-- that
is the basic implication.
>This is all that Hobbes, Locke, and Montequieu said. Rousseau was
>different, but he was a kook.
ah, but all great visionaries are usually first considered kooks.
the whole idea that government exists by consent of the governed
was a quite radical idea challenging the existing dogma of divine
right of kings.
>This is quite different from saying, "The government has the right to do
>what the majority says it can do." Government doesn't have any rights,
>only delegated powers.
that's what I tried to point out. it all hinges on the phrase, "the
government exists by the consent of the governed".
I don't really see how any of your points are contrary to anything
I wrote in the essay, despite your seeming to present them as if they
are.