At 05:35 PM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Euan Ritchie wrote: > > I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as > > they are elected by legal democratic means. > >I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to >change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place. > >And absent that you haven't had the opportunity to give consent. > >At best you're accepting of the current system. > >Modern Democracy is more than just voting for government, the term and >concept is generally used to encompass social orders that include rule >by law and institutionalised consideration for individual rights as well >as the mechanism of electing government. > >The philosophy it represents is generally thought to be that the only >proper authority to govern is derived from the consent of governed (as >opposed to ancient claims by monarchs and the like to derive authority >from Gods or right of force). That consent supposedly obtained from the >majority in free competition in elections. > >But the 'consent' in that concept is a different thing than the literal >consent that is given by one person to another. > >Perhaps you refer to the philosophical concept of popular consent to >govern and not a more literal meaning?
IOW, as someone has said, "Taxation WITH representation ain't all that all-fired great, either"? . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
