More Folks Withdrawing Consent To Be Governed

[mrjarrell]

I saw this article earlier today, but Rex Bell's commentary on it was too good to pass up, but not to pass on.

From The Bell Curve

The Declaration of Independence made some pretty good points about why the United States ought to be established:

"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."

According to the people over at Rasmussen Reports, a majority of Americans aren't as willing to give their consent as they used to be. I have to believe it's because our government started doing things to us, (in the name of doing things for us), that we really never consented to at all.

Read the rest at the source.

What does Rasmussen say?

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.
However, 63% of the Political Classthink the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeatedthis November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

More people are withdrawing their consent and seemingly view the government as illegitimate. I would proudly place myself in that group.

 

[CarmelHP]

Before you go scrapping the Ancien Régime, please try to tell uswhat you'll be replacing it with. In detail, not broad generalizations, please. Thank you.

 

[Tallenn]

Why must we name another master before slaying the old one?

 

[CarmelHP]

Why must we name another master before slaying the old one?

I think I'd rather have the "old master" than the lunatic, wild eyed ramble's reign of terror, that's why. It's much easier to destroy than to build.

It definitely could be worse under the heels of the thousands of tyrants a mile (or less) away.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

I don't think the op was talking about scrapping the current .gov, merely that the gov has just gotten to big and needs to be shunk (albeit quite a bit) to return it to what it has constitutional authority to be.
I could be wrong though....just how I read it.

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't think the op was talking about scrapping the current .gov, merely that the gov has just gotten to big and needs to be shunk (albeit quite a bit) to return it to what it has constitutional authority to be.
I could be wrong though....just how I read it.

I asked because I'm curious, I'm wanted to hear the answer before accepting it or debating its merits.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why must we name another master before slaying the old one?

Ummm, because some people remember the French Revolution.

OTOH, I will be withdrawing my consent, in November of 2010 and 2012.

 

[jeremy]

I am wondering how far the Feds will push back on the States that are in-acting 10th Amendment based bills...

 

[Ogre]

I am wondering how far the Feds will push back on the States that are in-acting 10th Amendment based bills...

That, and it will be interesting to see how far these states take their stance.

 

[jedi]

CarmelHP, change (not the I7BO kind) is mostly feared/troubling for mankind since we are a creatures of habit. Your statement: "I think I'd rather have the "old master" than the lunatic, wild eyed ramble's reign of terror, that's why." represents exactly that and is similar to what our founding fathers heard when debating getting rid of their king. Change does not occur without sacrifice.

 

[jeremy]

That, and it will be interesting to see how far these states take their stance.

I have heard from a couple of different sources of mine that some of the states are actually thinking of putting some teeth on the bills. Like arrest authority of Federal agents or withholding of tax revenue to the fed government...

We will see with time how far both sides are willing to take this I am afraid...

 

[antsi]

Ummm, because some people remember the French Revolution.

OTOH, I will be withdrawing my consent, in November of 2010 and 2012.

Bingo.

We Americans tend to forget this, because we are the exception.

Generally what happens when there is a revolution is that there will be a brief period of anarchy, then the most wicked and unscrupulous SOBs in town wind up taking over and setting up a brutal, tyrannical dictatorship.

There are about 10 or 20 examples right now in sub-Saharan Africa. Mao. Not to mention the poor bloody Russians, who went from the Tsar to the Bolsheviks to the Putinschina.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single example of a revolution other than the American one that did not result in an even worse government than the one that got overthrown.

 

[CarmelHP]

CarmelHP, change (not the I7BO kind) is mostly feared/troubling for mankind since we are a creatures of habit. Your statement: "I think I'd rather have the "old master" than the lunatic, wild eyed ramble's reign of terror, that's why." represents exactly that and is similar to what our founding fathers heard when debating getting rid of their king. Change does not occur without sacrifice.

Wrong, violent change, often even peaceful change, results in chaos, war, starvation, misery, death, and tyranny far worse than that which was thrown off. That's the norm. The American Revolution could have turned out that way and was exceptional in that the Founders saved it from that fate. Before I trust anyone with avoiding that fate, they had better have a pretty well thought out roadmap, not just, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" . Capisce!?

 

[ATF Consumer]

I am wondering how far the Feds will push back on the States that are in-acting 10th Amendment based bills...

They will threaten to cut funding...you know ...of the money they steal from the citizens through excess taxes.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Wrong, violent change, often even peaceful change, results in chaos, war, starvation, misery, death, and tyranny far worse than that which was thrown off. That's the norm. The American Revolution could have turned out that way and was exceptional in that the Founders saved it from that fate. Before I trust anyone with avoiding that fate, they had better have a pretty well thought out roadmap, not just, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" . Capisce!?

I agree with CarmelHP on at least this one point. We got on George W Bush for winning the war in Iraq and not winning the peace... exactly HOW is that different from cutting loose with revolution in our own country, before having a solid replacement lined up??

That's also why we have built in revolutions (err.. elections) every few years. We can revolt peacefully at the ballot box.

I personally am ALL FOR shrinking the Fed government and listening a LOT more to State and local points of view. I think that's a GREAT way to govern. We just need to elect leaders that will make it happen.

 

[Armed & Christian]

Hey! Here's an idea...

How about the government actually operating within its Constitutionally enumerated powers, according to its Constitutional restraints?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

A & C -

Come on now... that's pure _blasphemy_!! Surely you jest...

 

[Rex Bell]

Hey! Here's an idea...

How about the government actually operating within its Constitutionally enumerated powers, according to its Constitutional restraints?

I hope that was the perceived message of the original blog.

 

[jedi]

 

[mrjarrell]

Hey! Here's an idea...

How about the government actually operating within its Constitutionally enumerated powers, according to its Constitutional restraints?

That's a decent place to start. We don't need more drastic measures until we've tried that one first. Although we could do with getting rid of a couple of amendments to the BoR. That'd help things get off. And we could fire a million or so .gov employees. Make them get real jobs.