104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
You have established that people do not have the right to command you based on the birth rank they do not have. However, this does not establish that there is no other way for someone to gain the right to command you.
So let's take a look at your proposals for those other ways...
I'm glad you're finally admitting that birth rank is not the only way in which someone can have authority over someone else.
Uh, I am admitting no such thing.
What I am doing is acknowledging that you believe there are other paths to authority.
Until you prove such other path(s) exist, I won't be admitting that they do.
As I said: So let's take a look at your proposals for those other ways...
I contend that command is an ability instead of a right, which can be based on several things.
You are making a meaningless distinction. Walking is an ability. I have a right to walk on my own property. I have a right to walk on the sidewalk. I don't have a right to walk on my neighbor's property without consent. Thus command is an action that is authorized and legitimate, or unauthorized and illegitimate.
The ability to command can also be based on the capacity to threaten or commit violence, but that only works as long as one is in the position to threaten or commit violence. A third way, and the one which actually matters here, is basing the ability to command on the consent of others.
So I see three possible
paths to authority according to our discussions. 1. Based on rank. 2. Based upon violence. Might Makes Right
. 3. Consent of the governed.
You have not established that I and every other member of this group have no authority over you.
And you have not established that you and/or every other member of this group DO
have authority over me.
Because you were not born my king, my superior, my sovereign, or with a higher rank than I, in general*
, you do NOT have authority over me. What this means is that YOU
, jaimehlers, do not have authority to command me or to make rules I must follow as I go about my day to day affairs and live my life.*(I say in general, because you have identified that VERY NARROW field where you are SUPPOSED to have authority over me. I recognize your specific exception and I am putting it aside for now. (I will be returning to it later.) The specific exception only operates in a certain specific environment.)
A group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
So Alex and Brian are the first to arrive at the Island meeting. A pair is still a group. Not to worry though, Carrol through Zachary all arrived prior to the start of the meeting. Your old pal and internet buddy Habenae gets up on the platform and asks, "Does anybody here have a silver dollar with them?" Everybody looks at everybody else to see if anybody does in fact have a silver dollar. Each individual in the group comes up empty. Nobody has a silver dollar.NEWS FLASH: THE GROUP DOES NOT HAVE A SILVER DOLLAR!
It's just that simple... No group has anything its individuals do not have, whether it's silver dollars, bubble gum, or authority.
A group can NOT have any more authority than those that the individuals within the group have.
The entire "implied consent" position is an attempt to disregard this simple fact.
What matters is how that authority was obtained [...]
You are certainly correct that how the authority is obtained is what matters.
So let's start with the authority a plantation owner buys
when he buys a slave. The master owns the slave and every aspect of the slave's life. The slave owns nothing of his own. Not his life, not the fruit of his labor, not even his labor. A slave is not allowed to exercise free will. The master RULES
the slave by fiat. Whatever the master commands, the slave must obey.
What if a slave vowed to himself he was not going to remain a slave? The slave resisted recapture and was killed in the process. Are you going to argue that the slave brought it upon himself because he refused to comply after receiving beatings for refusal to obey the master's commands?
This is exactly what screwtape argued when he wrote this
: "[...] that's hyperbole. While it is possible you can end up dying, most of the time we don't go around killing people for not following the law. [...] You may try to physically resist and end up dead. But that's on you.
And for the record, fines are financial beatings.
In the end, the master's governance of the slave is based upon Comply or die.
Obviously the owner doesn't want to destroy his property. On the other hand, he might have to kill the recalcitrant slave as an example to the others, thus showing the others that it truly is Comply or die
in order to get their compliance with his will.
Now the examination of this authority must go to Africa. How did the slave trader get authority over the African in the first place? Did the African consent to the slaver's authority and just up and say "Yessa Massa, I dooze what youz tells me
" or did the slaver use force to create authority over the African?
I think you would agree that the mere fact that the threat of force backs up authority does not itself determine whether that authority is legitimate or illegitimate.
No, I can NOT agree.
As just evidenced, the authority over the slave was created by force. The authority was created by Comply or die
. Are you going to argue that this use of force does not determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the authority examined? Are you going to argue such authority is legitimate?
To quote something I read, the only way to justify renouncing someone's authority over you (whether de facto or de jure) is to have the capability to overcome them when they exert it over you. Emphasis mine.
jus·ti·fy: to provide or be a good reason for (something) : to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable : to provide a good reason for the actions of (someone)
So according to this, in order to prove the authority is illegitimate I must have superior physical force to refuse to comply with the command of the alleged authority. This is the Might Makes Right
In order to examine The Consent of the Governed
, a quick examination of both what it means to govern and what it means to give consent is required. To govern
means to command
, to rule
, to order
. To consent
means to to permit
, or yield
, and I especially like this one from a legal dictionary: A concurrence of wills.
If force is used to govern, command, or rule, then there is no concurrence of wills
and thus no consent.
Returning to the slave mentioned above, If after receiving beatings for refusal to obey the master's commands the slave decides he doesn't want the beatings anymore and he starts doing the owner's will, are you going to argue that there is consent of the governed
? This particular consent of the governed
is a pragmatic response to Comply or die
. There is no concurrence of wills
Law is a slave owner's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including, killing the slave for noncompliance.
How does a State*
govern, command, rule, or order? Via the mechanism of the (written) law.*(A State is an incorporated entity, a legal fiction, which includes its smaller divisions; counties, cities, towns.)
Can you honestly say that you have never, ever violated a speed limit law*
; or a stop sign law**
?*(66 in a 65 is a violation) **(rolling past a stop sign without stopping is a violation)
Since these types of violations occur daily, the governed
do NOT consent daily.
In terms of the legal definition, there is NOT a concurrence of wills
and there never will be wherever a law is ignored.
As stated above, you do not have authority to command me or to make rules I must follow as I go about my day to day affairs and live my life. Just as none in the group above have a silver dollar and thus the group collectively does not have a silver dollar, none of the individuals in the group have authority to command me or to make rules I must follow as I go about my day to day affairs and live my life. Thus the group does not have this authority either. I do NOT owe fealty to this group.
Law is a politician's command... So now is the time to examine what is a politician that commands.
A politician that commands is called a Legislator. A Legislator writes laws (writes commands) for the people to obey.
Using the 100 people on the island above for example, 40 voted for you, jaimehlers, to be the island's Legislator, 36 voted for Carol, and 24 abstained from giving any consent to either politician by not voting. A pesky truth is that only 40% of the populace wants you to command them and 60% of the populace did not vote for you and thus did not want you to command them. (The numbers I chose are based upon the Obama election percentages.)
The others did not have the authority to consent (offer a concurrence of wills
) for me and give you authority over me during the vote. You did not have authority over me before the vote. You do not have authority over me after the vote.
Your implied consent
argument simply can not work in this island environment. You need to get from 100 individuals to the government of The great State of Gilligan's Island
However, you have a problem... You have no authority over me. You have no authority present a concurrence of wills i.e. to consent for me, therefore you can not establish a government for me or in my name.
For this reason, this opinion is stillborn, dead on arrival:
A government established by the consent of a group of people has the same right to set rules regarding the territory those people claim as their to govern, the same right to force compliance with those rules, and the same right to punish troublesome non-compliance.
No one in the group can consent (offer a concurrence of wills
) for me to be bound to the State of Gilligan's Island or its laws, nor they can they consent (offer a concurrence of wills
) for my posterity. Neither can I.
[...] because it's plainly stated in American law that being born on American soil makes one a citizen [...]
If two slaves breed and a baby is born, is that child born free or born a slave?
And what will that child believe growing up in an environment wherein the dogma (the cultural programming) is that he is the master's property?
Since that child, now aged 18, didn't run away, has he given implied consent
to the slave master's governance? (By your logic, he has.)
In order for the law to apply, the child must be a citizen. The law can't make the child a citizen until the child is a citizen.
And what will that child believe growing up in an environment wherein the dogma (the cultural programming) is that he is the government's property... er... a citizen?
What happens when old Habenae interacts with the slaves and tells them the master's authority does not exist? They get really pissed at old Habenae because he's telling them the authority for their governance does not exist. Alas I digress...
You are a citizen, therefore you have at least implicitly consented to be governed. This will remain true as long as you are a citizen.
You are a slave, therefore you have at least implicitly consented to be governed. This will remain true as long as you are a slave.
What matters is how that authority was obtained [...], the federal government's authority is based on the consent of the governed.
What matters is how that authority was obtained, the slave master's authority is based on the consent of the governed.
I can already imagine your protest that being a citizen and being a slave are not the same.
The US government's authority is not based on the threat of force, ala "I have my hand around your throat (or a gun pointed at you) so you'd better give me what I want".
To quote something I read, the only way to justify renouncing someone's authority over you (whether de facto or de jure) is to have the capability to overcome them when they exert it over you.