I thought so. If it leaks, it’s not on my property anymore, is it?
The founders thought virtue and morality had to be present in the people or else this whole thing wouldn’t work anyway. The republic won’t ever run smoothly because that never materialized, but if the relevant contemporary abuses of tyranny and government without consent are things like the CRA and the ADA, I’d say what we have now works well enough.
WuWei
May 4, 2018, 4:42pm
63
I said on my property. If it gets off my property it’s not on my property anymore, it’s on yours. And I have infringed on your rights.
If I put the cannon on my property, it’s on my property. It’s none of your business unless and until I shoot it and the ball lands on yours.
That changes things.
I’m not building a Playdoh model.
WuWei
May 4, 2018, 4:43pm
64
I say it doesn’t. The cost is too high.
Amazing post though.
WuWei:
said on my property. If it gets off my property it’s not on my property anymore, it’s on yours. And I have infringed on your rights.
If I put the cannon on my property, it’s on my property. It’s none of your business unless and until I shoot it and the ball lands on yours.
That changes things.
I’m not building a Playdoh model.
So do you think its your duty to insure that things like that don’t happen?
WuWei
May 4, 2018, 5:13pm
66
Of course. I have no right to infringe on your side of the fence. In fact I have no right to even be on your property.
This methodology has irked me for a while.
7ranz
May 5, 2018, 5:49pm
69
Samson_Corwell:
This might as well be heresy or blasphemy. I jettisoned consent of the governed a while back. I think it’s an impossible standard that leads to a kind of gridlock in how to procede when there is a party who withholds their consent to some social system or set of political rules.
Suppose someone says that they never consented to public accommodations laws. Now let’s suppose someone else complains that they never consented to laws against trespass. Public accommodations laws, in addition to requiring an establishment to serve someone regardless of a particular attribute, make refusal to leave an establishment, when that establishment wishes someone to leave because they are of a particular attribute that is protected (i.e., race, sex, etc.), which non-consenting party’s non-consent wins?
I submit that this problem is even more broad and that any arrangement in society a person wishes to be changed constitutes being governed without consent. This then leads to the gridlock I’m talking about: the complainant doesn’t consent to the arrangements supported by everyone else while everyone else doesn’t consent to whatever arrangements that the complainer thinks are the fallback position.
Yup, consent of the governed doesn’t amount to much.
I disagree that it leads to gridlock. Gridlock is going to happen regardless because just about no one actually spends their time worrying about the “consent of the governed.”
