04/04/2017

Americans No Longer Believe In The ‘Consent Of The Governed’

James R. Rogers, Library of Law and Liberty

Way back at the founding era, Americans took seriously the idea of the “consent of the governed.” As Greg Weiner noted recently, and as I’ve discussed elsewhere, this consent is exercised collectively, either in aggregating individuals’ votes or through voter representatives. But Americans at the Founding took seriously the idea that their consent could be conferred by their representatives. This belief has changed in the intervening couple of hundred years. On both left and right, Americans now talk about taxes being forced on them to pay for things for which they disapprove, even though their respective legislatures adopted the taxes. I doubt many Americans today seriously believe that they’ve consented to most of the laws and taxes that their legislatures adopt. What changed?

The “consent of the governed” is a fundamental postulate of the Declaration of Independence, and is only somewhat-less known (and celebrated) than the Declaration’s affirmation of people being created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. (Belief in those things for another post.) What does it mean for the country when most of its people no longer believe one of the Declaration’s fundamental commitments?

We underestimate today the seriousness with which Americans initially took the idea of corporate consent. Most well known is the Declaration of Independence’s affirmation that governments derive their just powers from the “consent of the governed.” This relates to the creation of government; to the constitution-making, or constituting, stage in its most general form.

But the Declaration also asserts the need for consent to specific policies. It complains of the King “imposing taxes on us without our consent” and also objects to the keeping of a standing army “among us . . . without the consent of our legislatures.”

John Dickinson, writing the Farmer’s Letters before the Revolutionary War, refers to taxes set by Parliament as being “free gifts of the people” to the King. He added, “Taxes . . . were always considered as gifts of the people to the crown, to be employed for public uses.”

Of note is that the Americans were not complaining about the level of taxation. A modest tax without consent was objectionable; a high tax with consent was fine. The moral significance of this is difficult to understate if this consent is real: A government with extremely high taxes under the consent theory is no more objectionable than, say, a person having high car payments to pay because that person chose to buy an expensive car.

Read full article



You May Also Like:

Trump’s Tangle Of Rhetorical Inadequacy Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal

ISIS Claims Responsibility For Barcelona Terrorist Attack [Watch] Iain Burns and Dave Burke, Daily Mail

Who’s Next, George Washington? Harry Stein, City Journal

Leftist Revolutions Have No Limits Max Madison, American Greatness

Venezuela's Starving People Are Now Eating The Zoo Animals Tim Worstall, Forbes.com

Take Down The Statues Of Robert Byrd Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker

Gary Cohn Is Suddenly The Most Important Person In Washington And On Wall Street [Watch] Jake Novak, CNBC

Shep Smith Claims Republicans Are Unwilling To Defend Trump’s Comments [Watch] Martin Walsh, Western Journalism

Silicon Valley Billionaires Are The New Robber Barons Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

How To Know You’re In A Mass Hysteria Bubble Scott Adams’ Blog

Americans Are Rapidly Descending Into Madness Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg

Privatize The Public Monuments Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute

Chart: Global Income Distributions From 1800 To 2015 Andrew Moran, Economic Collapse News

Lib Media Hiding Dark Secret About Woman Who Toppled Confederate Monument Martin Lioll, Conservative Tribune

So When Will China’s Debt Bubble Finally Blow Up? Wolf Richter, Wolf Street

Missouri Senator: ‘I Hope Trump Is Assassinated!’ Chuck Ross, Daily Caller

What Exactly Fuels The Anticapitalism Of Pope Francis? Helen Andrews, Library of Law and Liberty

Politicians Can't Get Enough Energy Cronyism Veronique de Rugy, Reason

ObamaCare Failure: The Uninsured Are Turning To Over-The-Counter Animal Drugs Brendan Pringle, Red Alert Politics

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Search

SIGN OUR PETITION

FreeMarket Central

TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE POLITICS.

PASS A HEALTH CARE BILL THAT PUTS PATIENTS FIRST



Americans need a health care bill that serves needs of individuals—not those of Washington and big corporations.

 

Read more

Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

In Search Of History

When America Was Truly The Land Of Opportunity

For [early immigrants] America was truly the land of opportunity. For the first time in their lives, many were truly free to pursue their own objectives. That freedom released the human energies which created the United States. There were few government programs to turn to and nobody expected them. But also there were few rules and regulations. There were no licenses, no permits, no red tape to restrict them. They found, in fact, a free market, and most of them thrived on it. 

-- Milton Friedman,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.35%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 22.1%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central July Year-to-Year: 1.63% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.3%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]