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?
Great questions. And they actually recently almost played themselves out.
Comments are closed.
Nathan Key likes to think about faith and philosophy and talk about it with others. He lives with his family in New Hampshire. He doesn't always refer to himself in the third person.