Nathan Key

Two days ago, I wrote a post that became more thought provoking than I had originally considered. It got me thinking about the "Consent of the Governed" and what that really means. Here are some thoughts from Thomas Jefferson (I posted these in the comments section of my previous post):

"Government exists for the interests of the governed, .... There is an error into which most of the speculators on government have fallen, ... Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ... A court has no affections; but those of the people whom they govern ..."

From a libertarian perspective, this has always been used to argue for limitations on government- since powerful governments are often oppresive governments. But what if the governed ACTUALLY want intervention, regulation, and control? What if the governed don't consider these things oppressive, but liberating?

If consent is given to totalitarianism or facism, does the government have an directive to respond accordingly?

As you may or may not know, Rob McKenna, Attorney General in Washington State is joining his friends in the GOP to file a lawsuit against the healthcare bill that was passed in the House this week. While I praise McKenna's bravery in standing up against the majority of the voters and politicians in Washington (for what he believes in), I must agree with Washington Democrats that using the state's money to do so is a misappropriation of taxpayer funds considering that he doesn't have legitimate consent of the public.

Get that first McKenna, and then you can sue away if you want.