by Roger Young
Previously by Roger Young: I Hereby Secede
“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
What makes government, government? What gives this institution, created long before I was born, the power and legitimacy to rule my life? Some would say if I object to or reject the legitimacy of any government's rule over my life, I have the power to alter or abolish it. Do I have that power individually? Can I merely declare this government is hereby abolished as relates to me personally? Can I even alter it, only as it relates to me personally? No? I must accomplish this through the political process and elections? I must convince a majority of those now ruled to "vote" for this abolishment? But why?
America's founding documents include the phrase, “We the people.” We the people? How can anyone speak for other people without their consent? To take this question further, how can anyone speak for "we the people" as relates to people who are yet to be born?
If only a relative handful of people created this government that I'm obligated and forced to obey, (though I was not involved nor had a choice in creating) then why can it not be argued that only an equal number of people (or less) can abolish it? Why should more votes be required to abolish this government just because it's ruling area is larger? Is that my fault? Why should I be, essentially, punished because this government has increased its ruling area since it was created?
Why must this act of abolishment be done collectively? Who sets the rules and procedures for such an act, and who or what blessed them with the power to set such rules and procedures? Why wasn't I consulted?
All governments seem to be collectivist, in that none can be altered or abolished (at least peacefully) without collectivist action by "the people." Individuals, through their own means and actions, for some reason, do not have this power. Why not? And when I say "altered or abolished" in this case, I say that with respect to that individual only, not the collective.
I'm told that governments rule "by the consent of the people." In other words, only people collectively have that power. Why aren't individuals recognized as having that power? What if millions of people, each on their own, declared absolutely no consent to be ruled by their declared rulers? Would that declaration be recognized? What if the majority of people (each on their own, not collectively) declared no consent toward being ruled by this declared ruler? Would this ruling state then abolish itself? What gives this ruling state the power to determine how its legitimacy is determined (through political action, debate, and elections) rather than the supposed "free" individuals? If the government rules at the consent of the governed, shouldn't it be up to the governed how they declare their consent?
I'm told that if you don't like the government that rules you then you can move to where the government is better. But what if I don't want any government ruling me? Where, realistically, can I move to where no government declares to rule me? And why should I move? What gives the government dominion over a particular geographic area? It appears that someone, before I was even born, declared that this government has not only declared dominion over the particular geographic region I happen to live in but the power to rule me as long I reside there! Therefore I was born being ruled. Doesn't that make me a slave merely property owned by this declared ruler? What happened to my consent?
Why did this government not ask me (when old enough to understand) for my consent? It appears that it has assumed I've consented to its rule by merely continuing to reside in its declared geographic region. Why? How does merely living on a particular patch of dirt mean giving consent to being ruled by a government that I had absolutely no part in creating? And if I am truly "free" and I have not consented to its rule, why cannot I not therefore be free of the harassment and violence directed against me and my property?
No man or group of men has the moral authority to rule another man without his explicit consent. No man need feel obligated to obey and serve a government created before his existence as a sovereign human being. No man should need to petition or beg such an institution (created before his birth and lacking his consent) to cease and desist further encroaches upon his sovereignty, liberty and property.
William F. Buckley claimed, "It is not a sign of arrogance for the king to rule. That is what he is there for." Oh, really? Who or what put this "king" in that position? Why can some declare themselves "king" but others cannot?
Even the revered Aristotle professed, "For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." Is that so? What if an individual decides not to be ruled, that it is not "necessary" nor "expedient" as regards his personal interests? And exactly who does the "marking" of who will be rulers and who will be subjects? From whom or what do they get this authority?
Stay angry and suspicious my friend, toward those who assume such an arrogant position.