GonzoTimes | People believe that authority comes from ‘the consent of the governed.’ This is not true in the case of a state. What I am using is something that I learned from discussing and studying sexual abuse and rape. Consent is not the absence of a no, but the presence of a clear and freely given yes. The system works off of the idea that consent is the absence of a no. When a no is present the state defies the definition of consent in the later part. It is not freely given but given under duress. It works off of the idea that the absence of a no is consent and when a no is given there can be no freely given yes because that yes is not freely given but given out of fear of some retaliation. This is the nature of not only tyranny, but any other nice word we have invented for a governing body that currently exists.
Consent is not force. Consent can not be given under threat. If the rapist receives a yes by holding a knife to the neck of his victim he has not received consent. The film “Blue Velvet” pops to mind in this concept. Isabella Rossellini plays the role of a woman who submits to the sexual demands of a powerful and violent man. She does so out of fear for the life of her child. What makes the film even more interesting is the idea it conveys that shows this evil deed existing beneath the veil of a suburban paradise. People walk past it every day and do not see it or refuse to see it. The people in power that we are told to trust play a part in this abuse. This is very much like the culture in the United States.
We are told we consent. Herein lies a problem. One can not be told they have consented. That is not a clear and freely given yes, simply the absence of a chance to give a clear and freely given no. In abusive interpersonal relationships we see a similar dynamic. People stay in abusive relationships and are subject to abuse under one who hold power for fear for their lives and often the lives of their children or those they love. People will remain in an abusive relationship just to see the ones they love or to insure their safety. There are many who will see this abusive dynamic within the home and still refuse to see or acknowledge it’s presence on a larger scale. Then on the other side there are those who see this dynamic on a state level but tend to ignore it in an interpersonal level. Both seem to see the compliance without a freely given yes as consent which could not be further from the truth.
Often the power is financial. There are many women who will stay in abusive relationships because of immediate needs. Often people will stay within the abusive relationships of the state because of their immediate needs. To break from the abusive relationship is difficult. It risks the aggression of the abuser. It is perceived as dangerous to defy or to give a clear and freely given no.
A 235 year old document signed by 55 men is not consent. The group who seems to cling to this document seem to be the ones who blindly oppose ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ and speak negatively of collectivism. What is off about all that is how much of a collectivist mindset they cling to with applying the document formed by these 55 men to the collective state. These people are often the ones who hold the biggest collective utilitarian mindset that is justified by rhetoric mirroring individualism. They fight for the collective ‘defense’ and force. It seems that they promote collectivism when it is aggression forced on others. This is the group that may give lip service to consent but in reality displays contempt for consent.
Can you see any opportunity to consent in the phrase ‘join or die’? I do see the duress. It seems that ‘The American Way’ is just some more of that consent of the conqueror. It is that age old ‘law of the jungle.’ ‘Consent of die!’ is ‘The American Way.’ And as we saw earlier consent under duress is not a clear and freely given yes, thus there is no consent. Consent of a majority over a minority is not consent. Even still, is there consent of the majority? Outside of the connotation of the gadsden flag, this is another reason I am not really a big fan of those images of so-called liberty.
If the majority are often given limited choices they tend to choose the lesser of two evils. Their yes is more of a ‘meh.’ Even the democratic concept of majority dominates the minority is without consent. Coupled with the lesser of two evils people often choose to avoid a worse scenario. This is the absence of a clear yes as well as a freely given yes. It is more the absence of a no in one case and the presence of a no in the alternative given.
Also See:
