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.