Why Real-World Democracies Don't Have the Consent of the Governed

Ilya Somin has an interesting article which argues that "the authority of actually existing democratic governments is not based on any meaningful consent. In a genuinely consensual political regime , 'no' means 'no.' But actual governments generally treat 'no' as just another form of 'yes'".

He contrasts our common idea of consensual, e.g., I order something from Amazon and Amazon sends it to me, with the government. One example he uses is that I may vote against a particular law, or a politician who promises to impose that law, and yet if more people vote the other way, the law will be imposed upon me against my will, the exact opposite of what we mean by "consent" in other matters.

He points out that we have no reasonable way to opt out of government control. Moving to another country simply doesn't solve the problem.

Additionally, he points out, the government has no enforceable duty to us. The USSC has repeatedly ruled that the police have no duty to protect you; if they ignore your 911 call and you die because of that, too bad.

So, in short, this is rather like Amazon simply deciding to charge you for things, never sending them, and you having no recourse. If it were not government, backed by overwhelming force, we would never stand for it.

He covers a number of other reasons why current democratic governments are non-consensual and then moves on to why that is important.

... the nonconsensual nature of most government power does not prove that government is necessarily illegitimate, or that democracy has no benefits. Government power might often be justified on consequential grounds, such as its ability to increase social welfare, provide public goods, or curb injustice. ... And democracy still has a variety of advantages over dictatorship or oligarchy. Among other things, those types of regimes are usually even less consensual than democracy is.

But the lack of consent does undercut arguments that we have a duty to obey the government because we have somehow agreed to it or because it represents the “will of the people.” When the government makes unjust laws, it cannot so readily claim we have an automatic duty to obey them, regardless of their content.

Moreover, if government power must be legitimized by its consequences rather than by its supposedly consensual origins, that strengthens the case for imposing tight limits on the state in areas where the consequences are negative, or even ambiguous. ...

And this is pretty much where he leaves it. I wish he would have explored what a consensual government would look like, or even if such a thing is possible. One of his sources, Georgetown Professsor Jason Brennan, argues that it is not.

Brennan, according to his bio, is currently writing two books with the titles Against Democracy and Global Justice as Global Freedom. I can guess where he goes already.

So what about consent and the justification for democracy? What about those consequential justifications? What about the idea of the "social compact / contract" for those who were born into the system and had no say in writing that compact or contract?

Somin is a libertarian, and I also think that's where this leads us: All government is violence: vote for less.

But. I also question the idea of consent as applied only to particulars. Instead of this particular law or that particular tax, consent could be to the system. In this case, democracy looks more like a team sport. I don't consent to the other team scoring a goal -- in fact I do my best to make sure they don't. But I do consent to play the game and abide by the rules and the referees' calls.

That is weak, though. In a sport, if I decide I no longer want to play or abide by the rules, I can quit and do something else with my time. Not so with government. This is a sport we are forced to play. Again, I think the coercive nature of the relationship argues for the minimum government necessary. The less the government impacts my life, the more I can live it in consensual relationships outside of government control. It isn't perfect, but it seems a lot better than the alternatives.

61 comments:

E Hines said...

Well, that's the thing. We agree to a government, not to any particular aspect of it, and we agree to it as a group. It's one of the few areas where we subordinate--a fraction of--our individual rights and responsibilities to the group responsibilities (notice that--government has only the fractions of rights we grant it, and it has the responsibilities over us we create for it).

And that brings me to the other side of all of this. What guys like Somin so carefully elide is that individual responsibility. Whether we are, in a Rousseau-ian sense, the government; or whether in a Locke/Founder sense, the government is our employee, we have a responsibility, too, in addition to our rights: that responsibility is to keep active oversight on our government employee (or on ourselves), and make changes as appropriate.

In neither case is government a fire and forget affair. We have, individually and as a group, a responsibility of self-restraint (we are government) or a responsibility to actively manage and control our employee (Locke/Founder).

The fault, dear Ilya, is not in our democracy,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.


With (small) apologies to Cassius.

Eric Hines

Dad29 said...

A couple of other things occur to me regarding the essay.

First, the author mentions "unjust law." It is true that we have no obligation to obey an "unjust law." But the author did not define the term, which is a problem.

Secondly, the US is not now, nor has ever been, a "democracy." It was founded as a representative republic; thus elected representatives (in theory) will vote for what is in the national interest, even if that interest is not congruent with the interests of their immediate constituents. And again, we have to define the term "national interest," which is a problem.

Grim said...

Government involves violence, but it is also sometimes an alternative to violence. For example, consider Costa Rica.

Costa Rica abolished its military following an attempted junta in the mid-20th century. It has done without one since. It has a border dispute with Nicaragua, which has a military. Ordinarily, one would expect a conflict between a well-armed nation and an unarmed nation to result in the dispute being decided 100% in favor of the well-armed nation. That hasn't been the case. Instead, Nicaragua agreed to submit the question to super-national adjudication -- which is a kind of government, but one free of the charges you lay at the feet of government here. (For example, the nations don't have to continue to abide by the decisions of these super-national agencies; they only do so if they find it in their interest.)

The result has been a peaceful resolution that has defended at least some of Costa Rica's interests.

I'm not suggesting this will always work out, or that it's the way to go. However, it's a counterexample to the problem as you've framed it.

Ymar Sakar said...

I don't need the police to protect me, I just need them to look the other way and collect the body bags. That's all they are, they come up and clean up the body bags. If they had a duty to protect me, they would also have a duty to suspend my powers of self, in order to "protect me" like the way parents do to children.

Ymar Sakar said...

The Republic died a long time ago. The US is more of a democracy these days than Athens was.

Tom said...

We agree to a government, not to any particular aspect of it, and we agree to it as a group.

In what way is it meaningful consent for some group of people to give consent for me over my objections? I don't think "group consent" is any kind of real consent.

What guys like Somin so carefully elide is that individual responsibility ... to keep active oversight on our government employee (or on ourselves), and make changes as appropriate.

Where does that duty come from? Can you show me the contract I signed consenting to it? No? Then I think it is a responsibility imposed upon me from without, whether I agree to take it up or not.

Now, the virtuous thing is to take it up, but I don't want to confuse the individual choosing to act virtuously in a situation with consenting to be in the situation in the first place.

Tom said...

Government involves violence, but it is also sometimes an alternative to violence. For example, consider Costa Rica.

Yes, if I were being strictly accurate, I wouldn't say "All government is violence". I would say something like "All government is coercive in nature". I don't know the specifics of the agreement you used as an example, but I wonder whether the property of individual citizens was at stake, and if those citizens had any choice in the matter.

Also, government itself is paid for through coercion. Taxes are not voluntary. You pay, or you go to prison. Morally, what distinguishes government from a mafia protection racket? It has to be something if obeying the law is a moral duty or if we want to claim that the governed have responsibilities to or for the state. What is it?

I have always thought that consent of the governed was part of that justification, but years ago I realized I had no meaningful choice in the matter. It's a problem for me.

Tom said...

Ymar, police don't touch body bags. Their job isn't rolling around the cart calling out, "Bring out your dead." So, you'll have to write a new job description for them.

Grim said...

I have always thought that consent of the governed was part of that justification, but years ago I realized I had no meaningful choice in the matter.

Of course you do. Haven't I mentioned my great-great grandfather, who made moonshine? Or my grandfather, the welder, who in the Great Depression made whiskey stills?

A meaningful choice, and a righteous one, can sometimes be to raise the black flag. Of course, you have to be willing to accept the risks and costs of that. But there would be risks, and costs, should the government cease to exist.

Tom said...

Certainly, you are right about that. However, by "no meaningful choice in the matter," I meant, my consent to our government was never meaningful: the decision was made for me by people I didn't know long before I was ever born, and it is enforced upon me by people I don't know and who I did not assent to.

Let's move this out of the personal. Let's say I did and do consent to our current government. Others do not. Just like me, they never had a meaningful say in the matter. And it actually seems impossible, the more I think of it. We will never get everyone's consent.

So, it seems that consent of the governed cannot justify government.

Since government operates by coercion, I have to ask what right does one group of people have to force another to live a certain way against their wishes? Short of survival, none, that I can see.

And yet, I believe anarchy would be far worse than our fractured republic.

That's my problem. The answer seems to be to argue for the minimum necessary government: Do not coerce anyone to do something unless it is truly essential to do so.

Bastiat puts it differently. He said something like, the measure of whether or not we should have government do something should be whether or not we believe violence is justified to accomplish it.

Grim said...

Well, Aristotle would say that the problem is that you're following the erroneous Modern notion that it is individuals who form governments. Thus, since you cannot get the individuals to all consent, the government cannot be founded on consent.

In fact, he says quite rightly, it is not individual atomic adults but families who come together to form governments. This is the first part of the first chapter of the Politics. Human nature is such that we are all born into a family, and nurtured by it (and if for some reason that does not happen, we die as children or are else adopted or fostered by another family). We thus come into adulthood not as atomic and unencumbered actors free to decide to consent or not, but as members of an existing natural order bound by relationships and owing debts to those who sustained us and helped us come to be.

Thus, the individual's consent is not the issue. The question is whether the family consents. Whether you do or do not as an individual, likely if you consider your relations you'll find that almost all of them are glad to have a (more or less) stable state, and consent to it. Even if you wanted to withdraw your consent, you would be ethically bound to consider the interests of your mother, your sister, your maiden aunt Matilda -- all of whom benefit from the state probably much more than you do, and who desire it not be interrupted.

E Hines said...

Let's move this out of the personal.

You can't; it is personal, in the sense that it's entirely an individual thing.

Let's say I did and do consent to our current government. Others do not.

What is it that you, or they, are consenting or objecting to? The government, or some behaviors of the government?

In the one alternative, you, and they, are still here, entirely voluntarily and fully integrated and integrating in the outcomes of the terms of our social compact. That's your consent. What are you doing to convince enough of your fellows to change the terms of the compact? If nothing, and you're still here, that's your consent. If something and not succeeding, your continued presence is your consent, through your acceptance of the rest of the compact's members' judgment. If something and succeeding, that's your consent to the new terms.

In the other, it's your duty to convince enough of your fellows to act to correct the objected-to government behavior.

And there are no engraved invitations. Only continued presence, or absence. You don't get government tailored to every individual's personal wants and dislikes.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

That would be a more compelling argument, Mr. Hines, if we were really free to leave. I mean, you can leave anytime you want -- but you can't stay anywhere else without their permission. People say they're going to move to Canada if such-and-so becomes President, but Canada probably won't let you stay. Mexico exports its population to us, but is hard-nosed about us moving south (admittedly, after the Texas business you can understand their reluctance). Iceland seems like a nice place, but they're not keen on immigrants.

Tom said...

Grim, whether individuals or families, you will not get all of them to consent, so that answer doesn't really seem to solve the problem.

Still, it's intriguing. If that is the case, then my loyalty, obedience, and responsibility are not to the government or state, but to my family. Interestingly, IIRC, that was Confucius's position.

(Tangentially, that was one of the questions raised by the book "American Sniper": Is the proper priority God, Country, Family, or God, Family, Country?)

In the one alternative, you, and they, are still here, entirely voluntarily and fully integrated and integrating in the outcomes of the terms of our social compact. That's your consent.

It is not consent unless there is a meaningful choice in the matter. Let's say I am sent to prison, and I can choose to live in cell 1, 2, or 3. You cannot claim that because I choose to live in cell 3 that I am in prison by choice.

Similarly, if my choices of nations are all equally as bad or worse than my current residence, it's hardly consent to stay here rather than go there.

Also, not every citizen has the means to move to another country. What about them?

I'm not asking for an engraved invitation. But if you are going to tell me my consent is what gives others the right to rule over me, you had best hand me a contract that I can either freely sign or freely walk away from. Otherwise, your idea of consent seems pretty coercive.

You don't get government tailored to every individual's personal wants and dislikes.

Sure. But what I'm talking about is consent of the governed being justification for government. I am not saying we can do without government at all, or that there is some magical form of government that will make everyone happy. I'm wondering if justification by consent fails, and what that means if it does.

Tom said...

(Grim: You called me Modern. Ack. That hurts.)

E Hines said...

I'm wondering if justification by consent fails

Or to alter your construction slightly, I hope not fatally, if that consent has not been given, then as one of our social compact documents says,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Except, if you've not consented to the compact in the first place, this option is not available to you--these are clauses in a contract you say did not sign.

As to leaving, everyone can. That it might be hard, or it might be hard to find another country to take you, is part of your task in leaving. Your prison analogy fails because we're not in a prison.

Eric Hines

Tom said...

Well, people who are physically unable to move cannot.

Quick hypothetical:

A slave with a family in the antebellum South chances upon a meeting of slaves and their guide about to take the Underground Railroad north. He is given the choice to go with them, but he has to go now.

He greatly desires to be free, but at the same time loves his family and knows they will be far worse off if he goes. He chooses to stay with his family.

Has he now consented to his own slavery? To the whole system of slavery?

E Hines said...

So, you're positing that he can never change his mind, he can never try again.

Interesting.

On the other hand, we've already fought that war. I'm not going to waste time fighting it again. There aren't slaves here, except by violating the rules of our social compact.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Is the proper priority God, Country, Family, or God, Family, Country?

Aristotle says country (or, rather, polis) has priority over family because it is only in the political community that we can achieve the fullest expression of human life. I'm not so sure. It's a good question. What might you want to accomplish as a member of a polity that is worth sacrificing your wife, or your children?

On the other hand, liberty is only sustainable in a dangerous world as a member of a polity. Would you pass on to your wife, or children, a different sort of world if it meant keeping them alive?

It's worth a meditation.

Grim said...

(Grim: You called me Modern. Ack. That hurts.)

Then stop adopting Modern systems of thought. :) If it helps, philosophers use the term to refer chiefly to the 18th century -- the era of Kant, Locke (a little early), Hegel (a little late), and the Founders. Also "the Enlightenment," although it's worth noting that the people calling them 'enlightened' were each other.

Tom said...

So, you're positing that he can never change his mind, he can never try again.

No, he may seek another opportunity in the future, but my understanding of your argument is that until he does, he has consented both to his own enslavement and to the system of slavery. He had a chance to leave and did not take it, therefore he consents, according to your argument.

Grim, the more I think about Aristotle's claim about the family, the more things connect for me. I could potentially see a way to work through that to consent. I don't know.

Confucius claimed that, since a child could not exist without parents, children carry an infinite debt to their parents. There is something to that which makes sense to me.

Tom said...

Me: Let's move this out of the personal.

EH: You can't; it is personal, in the sense that it's entirely an individual thing.

Better phrasing: I've been using "I" as a hypothetical construct and it's starting to get confused with the real me, which is getting weird in this discussion.

Grim: Then stop adopting Modern systems of thought.

It's a failing of mine, I admit it.

Grim: If it helps, philosophers use the term to refer chiefly to the 18th century ...

Well, that's a bit better. I'd like to get over Modernity, but I'm afraid I'll end up post-modern.

Tom said...

In the one alternative, you, and they, are still here, entirely voluntarily and fully integrated and integrating in the outcomes of the terms of our social compact. That's your consent.

I've heard this claim forever, and accepted it in the past. However, I've never really thought through it before. Why would that be true? I can't think of anything but government that assumes consent this way.

A business might require you to do certain things on their property, but then, you aren't born and raised on a company's property, generally, and it doesn't cost thousands of dollars and a huge amount of effort to leave a business's property.

I don't know. It may be warranted, but it seems to fall in the same class of explanations as "Because I said so." What's the justification here?

MikeD said...

A business might require you to do certain things on their property, but then, you aren't born and raised on a company's property, generally, and it doesn't cost thousands of dollars and a huge amount of effort to leave a business's property.

Which, by the way, is why I generally oppose human cloning and the general purchase of human genetic material (eggs and sperm) by corporations in general. We have actually reached the technological level required for a company to fertilize an egg and pay a surrogate mother to carry the baby to term, and become the legal guardian of such a child. After all, the egg was theirs by purchase, the sperm was theirs by purchase, they rented the womb (so to speak), unless the biological parents fought for custody, they (for all intents and purposes) own that child. And that is a dangerous bit of ethical drama.

As for the main topic, I find this less problematic than most of those taking the libertarian position do. Consent of the governed will never truly be achieved in the micro (the individual level). Someone somewhere will object to something the government does, and thus have no say in that aspect of government. That's human nature, and it's unavoidable. It is when government loses the consent of the governed in macro that we see an illegitimate government.

To put it another way, it is currently against the law to sell unpasteurized milk (outside of some narrow applications such as for the production of cheese), because it is nominally unsafe to drink. For the vast majority of us, that really is no big deal, and we consent with that law. There are people out there who disagree with it (and indeed, the libertarian position is that so long as you are aware of the risks associated with drinking raw milk, it should be entirely up to you if you buy it, and thus the sale of it should be legal), but their position is outside of the majority. Thus in the micro (those individuals) their consent is not sought. They must simply abide by the government law. On the other hand, if the government decides that this whole "voting thing" is a waste of time, and uses armed force to remain in power indefinitely, then they have discarded the consent of the governed in the macro, and thus have crossed the line into illegitimacy.

MikeD said...

Where that line lies exactly is generally hard to determine. Strangely, it doesn't seem to be "when the majority of citizens no longer consent" because our most famous example of the government being considered illegitimate (the American Revolution) was begun when only approximately a third of the citizens considered the government no longer legitimate (with approximately another 30% considering the government legitimate and 40% of the citizens staying out of it altogether). So it seems that it simply requires a large minority to remove consent. But they must also be able to cast off that government through force of arms, because no government in history has ever surrendered power to a minority of its citizens without a fight.

And this leads me to my biggest concern. I truly do fear that the anti-gun zealots are endangering the stability of this nation by threatening to remove the 2nd Amendment rights from the rest of us. They really do not understand that this issue is literally a deadline past which there can be nothing but war. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will not hesitate to replace a vote on the SCOTUS that voted in Heller's favor with one who would repeal the decision. And shortly thereafter, someone would file a case tailor made to challenge it directly. Such a court would then overturn it on a 5-4 decision, and States and localities that have been waiting for just such an event would outright ban firearms for private citizens (after all, if the 2nd Amendment is no longer an individual right, but a collective one retained by the "state militias" then you have no legitimate right to own a gun). And that will absolutely spark a civil war.

They do not believe that a war would follow, because they do not see the danger. They believe that simply passing the law will make the approximately 421 million guns in this nation vanish overnight and we'll just grumble about it in our racist, sexist, homophobic blogs. After all, what good are guns against tanks and jets? Nevermind that no cop wants to go door to door to collect them, they just assume we'll all sheepishly turn our weapons over to the authorities. And it's these assumptions that make this so dangerous.

Cass said...

It is truly a mark of our (relatively recent) view of the world as it never has been that we're even having this discussion.

We inherited something tremendously value that we did not one thing to help build: a civilization. And yet the individuals who inherited this miracle can't see the immense value of what they inherited (nor appreciate how hard-won it was and the sacrifices that made it possible, nor understand what their lives would be like, had they had each generation been required to build it anew).

It's kind of appalling to me, but just goes to underscore what I've always believed about making life too easy for our children.

Our consent lies in nothing more than that we do not rise up en masse and overthrow the current system. No one ever said choices like this had to be easy - the true situation is that it's "what we have now" or "what we could build in our own lifetime if we had to start over".

Talking about consent being meaningful makes no sense to me - we always have choices, and no one should ever expect those choices to be cost free.

Cass said...

"valuable".

*sigh*

E Hines said...

No, he may seek another opportunity in the future, but my understanding of your argument is that until he does, he has consented....

No, only that when he quits trying, or doesn't try in the first place, he's consented. It's never over until it's over, and it's never over until we die. Unless we quit first.

Confucius claimed that, since a child could not exist without parents, children carry an infinite debt to their parents. There is something to that which makes sense to me.

I think Confucius had this backwards. The parents, having created the child, have an infinite duty to their child, but from the child's perspective, there was no choice, and so no duty--until he continues accepting his parents' succor past an age where he can make an informed choice. Which goes to your consent question.

Eric Hines

MikeD said...

I think Confucius had this backwards.

I think both are correct. The parents have a duty to this person they brought into the world. And the child has a duty to their parents for giving them a home as they grew into adulthood. Now, obviously, I think that a child raised in an abusive home has their duty expunged by the actions of the neglectful/abusive parents. But for example, I have a duty to my parents who raised me in a house of love and support. Their duty is fulfilled; I made it to adulthood a fairly rational and functional human being. Anything more they do for me at this point is simply kindness and love, it is no duty of theirs to come visit on my birthday. But they do it anyhow.

Grim said...

Mike is right. That your parents did their duty toward you imposes on you a reciprocal duty toward them. If you elect not to do it, you're a bad person. You can't escape the duty by an act of will, even though you can avoid performing it.

Kids These Days! said...

It is truly a mark of our (relatively recent) view of the world as it never has been that we're even having this discussion.

Well, sure, but so was the vote for women and civil rights for all without regard for race.

We inherited something tremendously value that we did not one thing to help build: a civilization. And yet the individuals who inherited this miracle can't see the immense value of what they inherited ...

Absolutely. Not just any civilization, either, but I believe the greatest civilization ever built. And it's worse than you put it. Far worse. It is not that they cannot see; it is that they are taught to believe that it is the greatest criminal regime ever to disfigure the face of the earth. That they are taught this is wrong, it is unjust, it is shameful, and it is the one thing we must change if we are going to save this nation, or so I believe, anyway.

Our consent lies in nothing more than that we do not rise up en masse and overthrow the current system.

So power is your answer. We must obey because they have more fighters with guns than we do?

Forget "meaningful consent." Consent can not be coerced. It is freely given or withheld or it is not consent.

If you think otherwise, explain that. Give me your reasons. Show me the logic.

Or, we can ditch consent as justification for government. There are other ways to justify it, I assume. Or, I hope.

- Tom

Tom said...

MikeD: Which, by the way, is why I generally oppose human cloning and the general purchase of human genetic material (eggs and sperm) by corporations in general. ...

I agree.

Consent of the governed will never truly be achieved in the micro (the individual level). Someone somewhere will object to something the government does, and thus have no say in that aspect of government. That's human nature, and it's unavoidable.

Yep.

It is when government loses the consent of the governed in macro that we see an illegitimate government. ... Where that line lies exactly is generally hard to determine.

See, I think this is where we end up in civil wars. That may be OK, but suddenly I am the guy arguing for minimum violence and coercion in society and Cass and the rest of you are arguing that revolution and violence are OK, and should in fact be the main deciding factors in who rules and how we conduct business in society.

What a weird turn of conversation. But, I'm the one who's followed this down the rabbit hole, so there we are.

Tom said...

Let's go back to Aristotle and the family. Now, I in no way pretend to know Aristotle's argument; I'm just jumping off here.

If we think of representative government, then the head of the family represents the family. This may be why only men could vote in the beginning.

By extension, the property owner presumably represents his servants and tenants, the master represents his slaves, etc.

So the father/owner/master represents those dependent upon him, and votes for local offices and the colonial assembly. They, then, represent him. He doesn't consent to every one of their decisions, but by voting he consents to the system (as I discussed in the OP).

Lots of individuals are denied consent: Women, slaves, non-property-owning men, etc. In a sense, they are political minors. But, for the Founders, this was consensual government. Did I get that mostly right? For a crazy radical, anyway?

However, we've (Americans, that is) rejected parts of this along the way. We've decided owning property should not be a prerequisite. Being a man, either. And we've eliminated slavery. So, as a society, we have gradually eliminated the family (or dependent group) as the locus of consent. This seems to mean that we are left with individual adults as the locus of consent, and we've all seen the issues with that.

(OK, I'm pretending we have. Maybe I'm the only one who has seen the problem with that. Or maybe there is no problem, I'm hallucinating, and you're all ready to throw rocks at me until I shut up. Hard to tell.)

What next? Right: Revolution, civil war, general nastiness ... In the end, brute force gives us the right to rule. If we win, we have the mandate of heaven; if we lose, we're dead and don't have to worry about it anymore.

Hm. This doesn't sound quite right. And, lunch is over. Stay tuned for the next episode of Revolutionary Radio.

Grim said...

... suddenly... Cass and the rest of you are arguing that revolution and violence are OK...

Not suddenly. That's been a recurring theme here for the entire life of the blog. :) Remember: Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence. They're all revolutionary documents. Revolution against tyranny is not only OK, it's how we got the good that everyone here is concerned with defending or restoring.

Grim said...

So, as a society, we have gradually eliminated the family (or dependent group) as the locus of consent.

The government's treatment of the family as disposable is the root of many problems in America. Interesting that, as you frame it, it was an accidental decision. Nobody debated whether or not this was wise or workable; it just 'falls out' of extending the vote.

MikeD said...

See, I think this is where we end up in civil wars. That may be OK, but suddenly I am the guy arguing for minimum violence and coercion in society and Cass and the rest of you are arguing that revolution and violence are OK, and should in fact be the main deciding factors in who rules and how we conduct business in society.

You misunderstand me sir. I did not say it was "OK" that it would take an armed revolution to overthrow a government that had become unresponsive to the consent of the governed. I said it would be necessary. Just as you agreed that there will always be those who do not agree to every aspect of the laws a government passes (the consent of the micro), so to is it that governments do not yield power without force of arms. It literally does not happen. Name for me one government in the history of the world that surrendered all its power simply at the request of those whose consent it has chosen to ignore. See, if you include those that surrender power when the citizens request it, then what you have is a non-tyrannical government that is responsive to the consent of the governed. We do that every 2, 4, and 6 years around these parts. What's remarkable is how unremarkable it is. When was the last time the US military had to be roused to oust a Representative, Senator, or President who refused to vacate the office when their term expired? Never. And we take such peaceful transitions for granted (Cass' point).

But, if the government is truly tyrannical (unresponsive to the consent of the macro), then such a government will only ever surrender its power through force of arms. I do not say this is optimal, or ever the best solution. I say it literally is the only solution to a tyrannical government. They respond to nothing else, or they were never tyrannical in the first place.

Tom said...

... suddenly... Cass and the rest of you are arguing that revolution and violence are OK...

Not suddenly. That's been a recurring theme here for the entire life of the blog. :)

Well, normally you and I and some others are, like, "Pitchforks! Torches!! Tar and feathers!!!11! REVOLUTION!!!"

And Cass is like, "Chillax, boys."

And here I am trying to figure out how to minimize the coercion and violence inherent in government, and Cass is all "Revolution!!!!Eleventy!!"

It struck me as odd at that moment.

Cass said...

Well, I don't think that's what I was saying, though :)

There are several ways to withdraw your consent from the social compact you were (in most cases) born into:

1. Sever all ties to the system - IOW, move somewhere where you like the rules better. Except most of us wouldn't trade the system we live under for any *other* government! Which rather speaks volumes.

2. Violently overthrow the system. This is how we got the America we live in today. England had incurred massive, massive debts as a result of the French & Indian War (waged to defend British colonists venturing into disputed territories to settle the land). Not unreasonably, the British people felt that the colonies should share in the costs of their own defense.

The attempt to raise revenue to pay off these debts led to the Stamp Act, etc. - the very issues that eventually caused the colonies to rebel against England. I'm oversimplifying, but not by much.

Was this right? Kind of depends on one's point of view, doesn't it? Since I didn't have to live through any of this (nor figure out how to repay those debts on the backs of British citizens alone), I'm thrilled we're not a British colony :p

None of this means violent revolution is right, and I'm not sure how that follows from anything I wrote earlier. It's "a" way to withdraw consent (I figured the Alex Baldwin Option was obvious, so I didn't mention it). Doesn't mean I think it's a great idea.

I don't really understand talking about not having consented. I would argue that the concept of constructive consent applies: you're born into a civilization, every day of your life you accept the benefits of living in that society (NONE of which you personally earned), therefore it is reasonable to infer acceptance of the social compact from your behavior -- you have neither violently rebelled, nor moved to Phrance; and you are enjoying benefits you did not personally earn and would not otherwise be entitled to.

This all seems pretty simple to me. Kind of what I told my teenaged sons: so long as you live under a roof I paid for, and eat food I provide, and drive my car (and until you move out and provide those things for yourself), you're going to follow my rules.

You don't get the benefits without giving something up in return, boyo!

Cass said...

One more thought: I'm likewise mystified when people talk about force lying behind government (as though that were a shocking, regrettable, or somehow unfair thing).

Well of course force lies behind government rules: no enforcement = no rule of law!

Force and coercion and social pressure underlie a large portion of human interaction. They are inevitable, with the only variables being who, how, and to what extent people act like bloody minded a$$hats.

Conflicts can be resolved in a fairly restrained way, with published (codified) rules and oversight and recourse through the courts, or we can shoot it out with the jackwagon next door when we object to their dogs coming into our yard daily to leave unappreciated little presents on the lawn. Personally, I am glad that we have laws governing real estate (and police and courts to enforce them) because that means to me that if I survey my lot and prove to my neighbor that his dogs ARE relieving themselves on my property, he understands that he's breaking the law and isn't just me he's taking on. Amazing how reasonable people become in such a context.

Government doesn't *change* human nature. What it does is channel human conflict in a more constructive way than "might makes right". It is far from perfect, but how many of us really want to move to France (or VietNam, or Egypt, or Bolivia, or Canada)?

The problem is that we inherited a system we did nothing to build. None of us have lived in a world without the rule of law, and so we take the status quo for granted and imagine that we could sweep away the underpinnings that support our present peace and prosperity and (mirabile dictu!) things wouldn't go straight to The Bad Place in the multiverse's largest handbasket.

Grim said...

I would argue that the concept of constructive consent applies: you're born into a civilization, every day of your life you accept the benefits of living in that society (NONE of which you personally earned), therefore it is reasonable to infer acceptance of the social compact from your behavior...

That, by the way, was Socrates' argument as presented by Plato for why it was right for him to accept execution.

Tom said...

Well, I don't think that's what I was saying, though :)

I may have dramatized ever so slightly ...

The government's treatment of the family as disposable is the root of many problems in America. Interesting that, as you frame it, it was an accidental decision. Nobody debated whether or not this was wise or workable; it just 'falls out' of extending the vote.

I don't know the history of the debates, so I glossed over them. But I am interested in knowing how much this came up when these decisions were made, if anyone knows.

Tom said...

Let me try to address several of your arguments and comments at collectively. This will take a bit, I think.

Coercion must be justified, or it is morally wrong. Since all government action is coercive, every government action requires moral justification. For example, unjustified tax collection is simply extortion, unjustified arrest is kidnapping, etc. That's why I made a point of it. There must be some principle that separates a just government from a tyranny, or from the mafia.

One typical justification given for democratic governments, and the primary one for ours, is the consent of the governed. Let me quote, emphasis mine:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, without the consent of the governed, government action is illegitimate, unjust. Governments themselves are not illegitimate until they become destructive of the rights of the people, or lose the consent of the governed.

Something else I've tried to show is that the idea of consent itself has changed over time. Whatever it used to be, now it means the consent of individual adults, and I don't think many Americans want to go back to the old meaning (not women, men without property, or African Americans, anyway).

Finally, one point I keep bringing up is that we may need other ways to justify government action. Consent of the governed may not be possible.

Tom said...

One recurring objection to Somin's thesis is that, by living here, we automatically give consent to the government. He answers that in a different article in this way:

The key flaw is that the argument assumes the validity of the very point that it is meant to prove: that government has the right to enact laws of a particular type in the first place. If mere physical or political control of a given territory gives the state the power to regulate property within that area as it wishes, then of course residents are required to follow those laws. But the existence of such a right is in no way demonstrated merely because individuals have chosen to live in the area.

Consider the case of an organized crime boss who has established a “territory” and has the physical power to punish area residents who disobey his decrees. Do residents have a moral obligation to pay him protection money or turn over property to him whenever he demands it? Obviously not, since the boss never had a moral right to issue such commands in the first place. The fact that people choose to live in the territory he claims does not establish that they have consented to obey him in any morally significant sense. What is true for organized crime bosses is also true for governments: the mere fact that a government establishes control over a territory and at least some residents do not choose to leave does not prove that they are required to obey the government’s dictates with respect to their property rights.

A bit further on, he specifically addresses democracy and consent:

As with the broad version of the consent argument, the “democratic” version also applies far beyond the area of property rights. If the mere opportunity to vote in elections implies that residents have consented to government control over their property, why not also over their lives, sexual autonomy, speech, right to be free of slavery, and so forth?

Democracy is a useful tool for imposing accountability on government. The democratic Mafia cartel I envision is likely to be less oppressive than the more authoritarian system described earlier. But democracy does not by itself justify untrammeled government control of either property rights or any other rights enjoyed by the people.

Tom said...

Now, Cass makes a good point when she says, I would argue that the concept of constructive consent applies: you're born into a civilization, every day of your life you accept the benefits of living in that society (NONE of which you personally earned), therefore it is reasonable to infer acceptance of the social compact from your behavior -- you have neither violently rebelled, nor moved to Phrance; and you are enjoying benefits you did not personally earn and would not otherwise be entitled to.

However, there are some problems. First, that is really justification by consequences, not consent. "You get a lot of benefits by being here, so it's just for the government to force you to obey." And that's a fine argument; I've said several times now we may need to abandon consent as justification, and maybe consequentialism is the way to go.

Second, no living person today personally earned the benefits of this society. We all inherited it, so while we should absolutely feel grateful for having been born or having ended up here, that does not justify the coercive power of the state, i.e., of some people living here over others. Notice that the Declaration does not say: "... deriving their just powers from the gratitude of the governed".

If we feel a debt to our ancestors (and I think we should), then there are many voluntary ways of repaying that debt, and we should pursue them.

Tom said...

One final point I'd like to address, at least for tonight, is Cass's comment at 6:33 PM above.

I actually don't think this was addressed to me because I am not an anarchist and have never advocated getting rid of government, but this pops up from time to time.

Cass is right about the potential benefits of government. I certainly recognize the benefits of law and order, a good military to defend us from tyrants abroad, good courts to settle civil disputes, etc. I recognize some coercion of the people is necessary to ensure the survival and freedom of that very people.

However, history has shown us many, many more examples of tyranny than it has of the good governance she talks about. Just because we need some government does not mean that all government is good and right and just. Look around: We could have been born in North Korea or any number of other places with wretched, murderous governments.

She says: Force and coercion and social pressure underlie a large portion of human interaction. They are inevitable, with the only variables being who, how, and to what extent people act like bloody minded a$$hats.

But I disagree. I think justice is also a variable. The use of force can be just or unjust, and that makes all the difference between law and order, crime and anarchy. The social return on the persistent, unjust use of force by government is, eventually, crime and anarchy, or revolution.

I am not a criminal, anarchist, or revolutionary, so I would prefer to avoid those eventualities. To that end, I have a great interest in the government acting only with good moral justification.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with Cass or anyone else here, but I felt I needed to put this out there.

Grim said...

There must be some principle that separates a just government from a tyranny, or from the mafia.

So, the principle I would assert here is this: both a government and a mafia have the interests of their members at heart, but a just government is distinct in that it also respects the rights of everyone else. The mafia isn't wrong to prefer its members interests to those of non-members, but it is wrong in that it violates others' rights in pursuit of those interests. This shows inadequate respect for the human beings who are non-members.

I'm not sure about your basic assumption that 'not being coerced without justification' is a right. There are areas in which it is: religion, for example, in which freedom of conscience is a right that should always be free of coercion. I don't think I buy the universal application. To return to the example of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, some coercion in settling a border dispute is to be expected. It may be laudable that they found another way to solve it, but it wouldn't have been immoral for Nicaragua to post guards around its preferred border given Costa Rica's refusal to arm itself. Maintaining a space in which your polity can flourish is the first duty of any political order.

Grim said...

By "first duty," above, I don't mean "most important," but rather, it is the one without which none of the others can be realized. It has priority in that sense.

Tom said...

I think your principle makes sense, and strong protections for dissenters and minorities (in the literal sense) certainly make any coercion easier to take.

As for international examples, I think we still look for justification for the use of force. If we could show that Nicaragua's claim to the land was actually based on documents forged by their intelligence services, for example, then it would be immoral for Nicaragua to move armed forces into the disputed territory.

Also, I think "Maintaining a space in which your polity can flourish is the first duty of any political order" is a form of justification.

Tom said...

One of the problems with Somin's response to the "You haven't left, so you consent" argument is that it undermines the concept of communal property.

Technically, when it comes to an individual, he's right. That argument assumes the right to rule and then derives consent from it, but that's begging the question. The right to rule comes from consent, so assuming you just have the right in the first place is circular.

However, if the government was justified by consent of the governed when it was founded, and it rightfully holds property, then when you are on the property of that government, surely it has jurisdiction over you. Otherwise, every new addition to a community would throw the whole thing into turmoil. This doesn't solve the consent problem, but it certainly complicates his argument.

Jefferson once said that every generation should have a constitutional convention and rewrite the whole thing for themselves. Maybe that's what he was thinking of.

Grim said...

Also, I think "Maintaining a space in which your polity can flourish is the first duty of any political order" is a form of justification.

Well, OK, although untempered it justifies Lebensraum as well. Thus, it is at least no sufficient justification. It is an empirical fact governing political philosophy, however, that without obtaining a sovereign space you are not going to be able to fully realize a political vision.

That argument assumes the right to rule and then derives consent from it, but that's begging the question. The right to rule comes from consent, so assuming you just have the right in the first place is circular.

That's a good point.

... if the government was justified by consent of the governed when it was founded, and it rightfully holds property, then when you are on the property of that government, surely it has jurisdiction over you. Otherwise, every new addition to a community would throw the whole thing into turmoil.

Bear in mind that, at least in terms of the UK and the US, real property is always finally owned by the government. That's why eminent domain is justified: not because the government has a right to buy something you don't want to sell, but because the government is the final owner reasserting its ultimate claim on the property. There is no property in the United States that does not finally belong to the government. This doesn't solve the problem everywhere, but it is the solution our system applies.

Ymar Sakar said...

Ymar, police don't touch body bags.

That wasn't the claim in question.

MikeD said...

Something just struck me about the "a slave who doesn't leave equals consent" argument. It falls on its face for one primary reason. A slave (or citizen of a tyrannical government) who attempts to flee and is caught will, at best, be punished. At worst, they'll be killed and their family will suffer.

Tyrannies and slave masters cannot ever have consent. Because they punish or kill those who refuse to submit. Such a situation is, inherently, illegitimate. The only time "you didn't leave, so you consent" can be viable is in a society that lets people leave freely. Like the US. Literally, you are free to go anytime you like. Finding a new place is your problem (as it should be), but no one will throw you in jail, fine you, or shoot you if you attempt to escape. So you grant your consent to be governed by not leaving.

Ymar Sakar said...

Well of course force lies behind government rules: no enforcement = no rule of law!

No, that's not how it works. There are plenty of examples where the rule of law was enforced by the community itself. The internet, biker clubs, and other such things are great examples of self reinforcing culture, reinforcing their own rules and laws, without the need for enforcement by an external or even internal body.

In nations like Japan or Singapore, where the rule of law is pretty authoritarian, there are other mechanisms for dealing with issues before it gets to that point. The society and culture fixes things on their own, by their own free will, rather than relying on police.

A nation that needs to rely on force to enforce their own rules... has become a police state or a totalitarian state, or soon will be.

The justification for government is results and power, willpower if nothing else. Somebody has to decide to take charge of the sheep. Family was destroyed in the US, because it was convenient culturally. The march through the institutions was invisible, until it became visible.

And while Grim has spoken about revolutionary methods here on his blog for several years, that was only in the abstract for the future and past. When presented with "Civil War II", Grim did not think it a concrete problem and pushed for the humanitarian salvation of the various casualties that would result from an Iraqi style insurgency in say, Chicago. And it was only recently that Grim changed his view point, because war became more concrete for him, in the present and future. Cassandra believed in people's good will or at least incompetence. But did not believe the system would crash in on itself so suddenly in 2008. She believed in the system or the people running the system would be handled by the system. Only recently, in their eyes, has their views changed. But to them, it hasn't changed, but I consider that a rationalization.

It's not new to me, this situation or its consequences.

Nobody debated whether or not this was wise or workable; it just 'falls out' of extending the vote.


That's why Japan is such a useful control group for the West. They have the vote, same enfranchise as ours. But their family values *clan powers* are higher, comparable to 1950s America. So what changed in America? It wasn't the vote, modern technology, or democracy. Japan has all of that, same as the West.

To see clearly is to be able to conduct parallax, comparisons, using stable points and dynamic points. Stereoscopic vision if nothing else.

The right to rule comes from consent, so assuming you just have the right in the first place is circular.


No, that comes from 3 things. Money (logistics), Authority (obedience), and Power (WillPower).

Just three things. consent is one form of providing authority to leaders, but it is not the only kind.

Tom said...

MikeD: A slave (or citizen of a tyrannical government) who attempts to flee and is caught will, at best, be punished. At worst, they'll be killed and their family will suffer.

Tyrannies and slave masters cannot ever have consent. Because they punish or kill those who refuse to submit.

What if a tyrannical government did allow people to leave? Would it then have the consent of those who stayed?

The only time "you didn't leave, so you consent" can be viable is in a society that lets people leave freely. ... So you grant your consent to be governed by not leaving.

I agree that's the only situation where it can be true, but it doesn't establish that it is true. As Somin points out (see 11:47 PM above), the idea begs the question.

Ymar: That wasn't the claim in question.

I was joking. But it's true.

Tom said...

Grim, I'm not sure I see your point about international coercion. You said, "I don't think I buy the universal application. To return to the example of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, some coercion in settling a border dispute is to be expected."

But expected isn't the same as justified. I'm not sure that what I'm talking about applies to international disputes; I have in mind just the relationship between residents of a state and the government of that state. But, let's run with it.

Probably, one of the nations has a better claim. In what way would it be moral for the other nation to use force to solve the issue in its favor?

MikeD said...

What if a tyrannical government did allow people to leave? Would it then have the consent of those who stayed?

May as well ask if an omnipotent god can make a rock so heavy he can not lift it. If he cannot make such a rock, he is not all powerful. If he cannot lift the rock, then he is not all powerful. This is likewise a logical paradox to me.

Let me put it this way, a government that does not let its citizens leave is inherently tyrannical. It removes the possibility of consent. A government that allows its citizens to leave allows the possibility of consent, but that still depends. Is that government gaslighting its citizens? If so, then they do not truly have consent. Is it threatening the lives of others (hostages) if you choose to leave? Then they do not have consent. Is leaving allowed, only so long as you subject yourself to a hazardous trial of some kind? Then they do not have consent.

Only in cases where a government truly allows its citizens to leave, without compulsion, threats, or punishment can it possibly have consent. And I cannot think of a single tyrannical government in history that allowed that. Can you?

Grim said...

But expected isn't the same as justified.

OK, there are two ways of talking about this, from positive law and from natural law. In the first one, the coercion necessary to establishing and defending a space for a polity has priority over any system of justification. This is because any system of justification that might come out of positive law depends upon the existence of a polity, and the polity must have space in order to come to be. Thus, at least in terms of gaining space in which to establish and maintain a polity, we wouldn't ask for justification: it's out of place. Justification from positive law has to follow coercion. The coercion of at least this type can't be justified, because it is the root of any positive law justification.

But you can talk about it from natural law, too. Then there is a justification, not in positive law but in human nature. As Aristotle says, we can only attain the fullest human life in a community. Thus, the coercion necessary to obtain and defend a space for that community is justified by the fact that it is a necessary condition for the best human ends.

Tom said...

Mike, in our hypothetical "what if the US repealed the 2nd Amendment" thread, you stated that any nation that took away the right to keep and bear arms was a tyranny. So, yes, I can think of quite a few. In fact, all of them, except the US.

Grim, in that case, positive law seems amoral. Also, it assumes the polity has a right to exist in the first place, but that's not necessarily true.

I'll have to think about the natural law argument.

MikeD said...

Hmm, fair point. Do I consider the UK to be a tyranny then? Well, likely so. After all, we literally fought a war to get away from them, they hold no inalienable right to free speech, or even self defense... Yes, likely so. Ok, so yes. A lesser tyranny like the UK, Canada or Australia does indeed have the consent of its governed by virtue of the fact that they can leave at any time unhindered.

So let me amend my statement: "slavers or tyrannical governments that do not allow their citizens to freely leave without fear of or threat of punishment cannot ever have consent". Better?

Ymar Sakar said...

China allowed people to leave, or perhaps they lacked the power to stop them. But China is still rather tyrannical in nature, due to the communist party. They are more of an oligarchy than an economic system these days.

Just as 3 critical things are needed to establish the legitimacy of a ruler, and just as many things can form the authority of leaders, freedom of citizens is multifaceted. They may be free in one sense, but not another.

Slaves under 2.0 slave barons were free in their minds, but lacking in education and physical freedom. Slaves under Slavery 3.0, the current modern day system or Islam itself, believe they are free and they have large amounts of physical freedom (apart from Islam). Yet they are not free of mind or will or free will.

They are controlled. Which one is worse? Which one constitutes tyranny? It is not so easy an issue that it can be dealt with by isolating down one policy, such as passports or what not.

Tom said...

Mike, yes, I think I would agree with that. And I think it does take apart my hypothetical about the slave not running away.