And as for the “thats not really what we are talking about” comment, I apologize. Don’t you just hate people that take a blog post off topic???

Perhaps I could suggest a couple of *gasp* hypos we could work through. I think we can agree that it is very possible to be born into a country which one grows up to believe is wrong in one way or another. Perhaps I am a Christian in China or Pakistan, or a fundamentalist Mormon in the United States. I decide that the government is fundamentally wrong and I wish to withdraw my consent to be governed by it. Ignoring for the sake or argument the possibility of moving to another country, I have some options:

I could choose to abide by the laws though they compromise my convictions. This is the easiest option, unless my belief system informs me that the civil government is not the highest authority. If I am more concerned with the fate of my soul than with the fate of my body, this option becomes less and less appealing.

I could decide to revoke my consent by overthrowing the government. This goes along with the point you made in your penultimate comment. If my tacit consent is registered by my failure to revolt, then to withdraw my consent, I must revolt. I have many ways to attempt such a revolt: I could assassinate the president, blow up a federal building, or recruit like-minded individuals to help me plot a series of attacks. While this stands a chance of succeeding in already unstable dictatorships, we all know that it would not accomplish anything in the United States. If my beliefs inform me that it is good for me to die in the effort, this might be the way to go.

I could decide to revoke my consent by withdrawing from society. If I want to continue living, but on my own terms, I could inform the government that I no longer wish to be governed by it, and do everything in my power to physically separate myself from the rest of society. If there are others who share my convictions, I could invite them to leave with me and we could form a commune with a government based on our shared beliefs. This is attractive as a way to encourage non-violent withdrawal of consent, but recent events show us that it is equally ineffective. To the extent that the civil government knows of our actions, it will enforce its laws regardless of the desire of the people to be governed by them.

This is why I say that there has to be a reason, other than “consent of the governed,” that it should be “right” for the government to enforce its laws. If consent is never expressly given and cannot realistically be withdrawn, is it really consent?

We’re talking about the question of duty and from whence it arises. We avoided the theological debate (with some potholes along the way) and have navigated our way to the legitimacy of government enforcing the law and, by extension, a duty to your fellow citizens as a function of the law’s origin.

Incidentally both of your points – Iraq and Tweedle-Dee – are problems with my formulation of consent – I struggle with them. And I’m not really sure that I know the answer.

Let me try to make three points briefly before class starts tonight…

1). With Iraq they traded a native force (Hussein) for a foreign force (the Americans and new Iraqi police force), each of which is focused on keeping people “in” (i.e. maintaining the government system that formed them).

I would argue simply that the latter (american/iraqi police force) is more legitimate because it’s authorized by a leadership elected by the people. Granted, this argument will struggle with the notion that the people did not choose to overthrow Saddam (though I would offer as evidence the several attempts made against him over the years).

2). This would mean that I’m arguing essentially to determine the “rightness” of the government’s effort to keep you in, the form of government is central to this formulation. A government formed on the basis of the consent of the governed, has a certain degree of license from the people to engage in certain actions that will maintain order.

3). That brings me to your final question and I think it’s vital to define what’s “in” and what’s “out.” I don’t want to squish out here but I think you can answer in terms of degrees. There’s the civil disobedience end of “out,” protesting and objecting to certain unjust policies and the armed rebellion end of “out.” Each involves a willingness to accept consequences of actions, though one involves working within the system while the other involves outright rejection of it.

I need to give the next question some more thought, namely, who is right in the state’s effort to use force to keep you in? Though I would start from my formulation of consent and how that informs the legitimacy of a form of government.

Although I would point out that by that definition of consent, that Iraqi people consent to the “coalition” occupation and the citizens of all manner of despotic regimes in third world countries consent to their oppression. I’m not sure I’m ready to equate acquiescence to superior physical force with consent to be governed.

The analysis also changes depending on whether the scope of review is done on the individual or societal level. Short of armed rebellion, how does one revoke the consent to be governed? I agree that a government that allowed such an “opt-out” would be no government at all. In reality, we don’t have a choice whether or not we want the government we have. Sure we can vote, but when your only real choice is between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, year in and year out, it causes one to wonder whether the constituency is running the system or whether the system is running the constituency.

So to bring it around, if I get tired of the “system” and decide I want out, the government forces me to stay “in.” If it is right for it to do so, why?

“Autonomy” was a poor choice of words. “Freedom” is the word I was going for and I suspect you’ll find it just as interesting, if not more.

I disagree with your notion that the consent of the governed is a red herring. We grant consent for any number of things – including who governs us – just as centuries ago the people granted consent the Constitution. While the state enjoys a monopoly of force to maintain this system, on some level we consent to that, by not revolting – because, weighing the alternatives, we choose not to. The fact that we’re not willing to face the consequences should not be viewed as a lack of consent (it is, on its own, a form of consent).

Personally, I believe the ability to make choices is granted by God to human beings who, being created in His image, hold a capability to reason and discern what is right and just. And while we could debate the degree of autonomy an all-knowing God may (or may not) grant human beings, when it comes down to it I walk into the voting booth each year (or almost each year) and vote as do millions of other Americans.

Now, I agree with your earlier point that there are laws that are fundamentally unjust. These laws are not made just simply because they are made law by an elected body. Consent is granted on many levels and in many ways – I may consent to the system but not to every policy or outcome it produces.

I would submit that the “consent of the governed” is something of a red herring. I say this because no one actually gives any such consent, and what consent they are construed to have nonetheless given is irrevocable. In other words, you can’t “opt out,” short of moving to another country and renouncing citizenship (unless you become a terrorist, in which case you still get the protections of the Constitution). This being the case, there really is no consent and the government imposes its rule by force.

Again I ask, what gives them the right?

We have the freedom to give such consent because we have autonomy as human beings endowed with reason and judgment to choose what we feel is in our own best interests.