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:

Can Trump Make America Grow Again? The Signs Are Hopeful Andy Puzder, Wall Street Journal

Even With President Trump’s Reductions, Welfare Spending Is Still Growing Oren Cass, City Journal

Who Will Stand Up For Civil Liberties? Alan M. Dershowitz, RealClearPolitics

Pop Singer Ariana Grande Offers To Pay For Funerals Of Manchester Bombing Victims Warner Todd Huston, Young Conservatives

First They Tore Down Confederate Monuments. Next They’ll Come For The Founders. Matt Walsh, The Blaze

That Pope ‘Frown’? More Fake News From Fake Media Nate Madden, Conservative Review

Teachers Get Into Brawl In Front Of Horrified Students [Watch] Lia Eustachewich, New York Post

Rasmussen Reports: President Trump’s Approval Ratings Hit 48% [Watch] Rasmussen Reports

Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers Scott Adams’ Blog

Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief For Gathering Evidence On Her IT Staffer’s Alleged Crimes [Watch] Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller

Directors Check Actors’ Social Media Before Casting To Make Sure They Don’t Support Trump Christian Toto, Hollywood in Toto

TV Actor Discovers His Inner 'Ron Swanson' After Trying To Start A Business Brittany Hunter, Foundation for Economic Education

Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine For Plowing His Own Field Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon

Report: Premiums Doubled Once Obamacare Took Full Effect Robert Donachie, Daily Signal

The Free Market Is Diversity’s Best Friend Walter E. Williams, Townhall

Leftists Destroy Female Business Owners' Burrito Stand Because They're White Amanda Prestigiacomo, Daily Wire

The Dark Side Of Paid Parental Leave James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Search

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

Cambodia's Deadly Experiment

In the 1950s, students started gathering in Paris. They were reading Karl Marx. They were forming book clubs. They were trying to come up with a better version of society. One that moved away from the division of labor. One that moved away from the capitalism in the big cities that they so despised. ... One of those students would change his name to Pol Pot. He and his colleagues formed a new political party, a takeover in Cambodia. They called themsevles the Khmer Rouge. ... Under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, one out of four people in that country died in less than four years. 

-- Matt Kibbe,

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: 4.4%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 22.1%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central April Year-to-Year: 2.20% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 10.0%

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