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.
I'll just take notice of your word weaseling for now.
You mean like your attempts to try to weasel your way past the idea that someone might have authority over you by fixating on birth rank? You've never actually established that nobody has authority over you; you've just established that they don't have authority via nonexistent birth rank. Granted, I was using a semantic argument here; I thought it might get your attention at least, since most of your previous responses consisted of little more than belligerent repetitions of your "birth rank" logic.
At some point, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such command will have to be addressed.
Legitimacy is a non-issue. A bastard is an illegitimate child (a child born out of wedlock); does that mean they're not a child? Does that mean they didn't inherit certain things from their parents (genetics, if nothing else)? Legitimacy is very often just a way to deny the reality of something that actually exists.
Which is how "government"... Any "government" commands. Comply or die. Habenae Est Dominatus.
I have already observed how many in this thread refuse to acknowledge that the gun under the table is what backs every "law" legitimate or illegitimate.
You're making a big issue of the "gun under the table". What I don't think you realize is that the threat of force underlies the rights declared in the Declaration of Independence as well. If someone threatens your right to live, you have to back it up with force, which may include taking away their life to prevent them from taking yours. If someone threatens your right to liberty, you have to back it up with force. And so on.
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. What matters is how that authority was obtained and to was uses it was put. For example, the federal government's authority is based on the consent of the governed. Note that voting isn't
what establishes consent; voting is a privilege that one can choose to exercise or not exercise at their discretion. Consent is established by being or becoming a citizen, and you withdraw it by ceasing to be a citizen. However, the authority vested in the government doesn't just extend to the persons who consent to it; it also extends to the territory they claim as their own. Otherwise the federal government could do nothing to an alien who entered this country illegally, nor could the states, counties, cities, or other local governments. Not even individuals could; who are they to make that decision?
What that means is that even if you renounced your citizenship, you would still be accountable to the government (which is speaking for its citizens) and its laws as long as you stayed within territory it governs; otherwise illegal aliens could not be arrested for breaking laws here. This is the same principle as a visitor to (as opposed to a resident of) territory you claim as your own having to be accountable to you and your rules. If someone who was a visitor, or even a former resident, decided to start using part of your property without your permission, I doubt you would just blithely let them do so without consequence.
Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it
follows does not follow that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.
Corrected it for you. You have not established that I and every other member of this group have no authority over you. You have only established that authority cannot be based on birth rank. The former does not follow from the latter and therefore your logic is invalid. Before you continue this discussion, you really should correct that mistake, because it's very annoying having to keep pointing this out to you.
Leaving that aside, you have consented to be governed by remaining a citizen. If you no longer consent, you need only renounce your citizenship.
You can NOT consent for me. You can ONLY consent for yourself. So such ability to command ONLY applies to yourself.
Incorrect. If you come onto my property, I can certainly command you to leave, and throw you out on you ear if you refuse. So yes, I can have the ability to command someone else under certain circumstances, even if you don't consent to it. That means that the government, based on the consent of a group of people, can also possess the authority to give commands to others under certain circumstances, even people who didn't consent to its governance.
Correct. "to all of those people" who have consented FOR THEMSELVES.
Just as you can NOT consent for me, neither can they.
It's also valid for the place where those people live. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell someone to get off of my property and throw them out if they didn't comply, or to expect them to follow certain rules in exchange for being allowed to stay there. A group of people who establish a city have the same right - to establish rules for residents and visitors alike, and punishments for those who don't comply with those rules. If you don't like their rules, you don't have to go there. If you go there anyway, you can't break their rules and then complain about how you never consented to their rules when they come to punish you for it. You consented simply by going there, whether you were aware of the rules or not.
That would be 'and thus is valid to all who voted.'
And again, Just as you can NOT consent for me, neither can they.
And since I don't vote, I do not agree to abide by the results.
Again: No authority to command me.
To reiterate, when I own property, I have the right to set rules regarding that property. If you don't comply with those rules, I have the right to force you to in order to protect my ownership of that property, and to punish you if your non-compliance caused me trouble (for example, a person comes into a restaurant and orders food but can't pay; the restaurant can certainly require them to work off the money they owe by washing dishes or something). 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.
Larken Rose says it best:
Why should I care about Larken Rose's opinion in the first place? You haven't even established who he is, let alone why anyone should bother listening to him. After all, he doesn't have any authority over me or anyone else here.
To give you an example for why his argument fails, let me ask you a question. If you were to find someone on your property, taking things you own without your permission, would you listen if he told you that he hadn't agreed that you own those things? Or would you threaten him with force in order to retain ownership of your property? I am quite certain that your answer will be the latter one, which means that Larken Rose's argument is specious. The fact is that the other guy doesn't have to agree that you own those things in order for you to actually own them; you don't have to come to some "mutual agreement" where he 'consents' to your ownership for you to actually have that ownership.
That's just one example of how badly his argument fails. As another example, in no way does he establish that implied consent is a myth. He simply declares that it is with no evidence. It's an argument from authority, except that he's no authority on the subject, which makes it into a fallacy. Yet another way in which his argument fails is declaring that a person who was born in a country doesn't agree to anything. You've stated that you voted in the past; in order to register to vote, you had to affirm that you were a citizen. By itself, that's more than enough to demolish his argument.
What, specifically and factually do you mean by "town"?
Anything that has a municipal charter and thus a municipal corporation governing it. Note that a municipal charter always defines a specific territory that is thus governed, though the boundaries of that territory may be modified periodically.
I have not given him authority to speak for me. You can not give him authority to speak for me. So if by "town" you actually mean all the inhabitants therein, you are in error.
I mean the area defined by the geographical boundaries in the municipal charter. Since you did not live there before the charter was established, you cannot move there later on, purchase land, and thereby abrogate the town's authority over that land. Indeed, the deed of ownership for the land would be based on the town's authority under the municipal charter. All deeds of ownership in this country are based on the authority of the jurisdiction within which they fall (generally, city or county, although there are some cases where state or federal land is sold).
If by "town" you mean the corporate entity (that would be the incorporated town), he can certainly speak for that, since he is an officer of the same. However, we are back to the same lack of authority discussed all along.
As I just stated, I mean the area defined by the geographical boundaries in the municipal charter. Since his authority covers that, you cannot abrogate it after the fact merely by moving there and purchasing land, since you would have to go through the offices of the town in order to have purchased the land.
I think you are beginning to understand the concept.
Oh, I haven't had any trouble understanding what you're trying to say. I just don't agree with it, and you have not done a very good job of convincing me to change my mind, or of demonstrating that you've thought it through fully.
However, you don't need to use a person from somewhere else in your scenario. Let's use me as a person living in that town.
So, yes. The mayor doesn't speak for me. (I didn't vote for him to speak for me.) I didn't give the mayor consent to govern me. (I didn't vote for him to govern me.) I didn't give the mayor authority over me. (I didn't vote to give the mayor any authority because I didn't vote for him at all.)
Therefore the mayor has NO authority over me. With no authority over me I DON'T have to pay attention to the mayor's proclamations.
It is irrelevant whether you voted for the mayor or not, or even if you chose not to vote. The act of voting is not itself consent to be governed. Voting is a privilege extended to citizens which allows them as a group to choose who they want to represent them. It is citizenship that gives consent to be governed.
If you live within the town, and thus within its jurisdiction, you don't get to claim that because you didn't vote, you didn't consent to being governed by whoever ended up getting elected. That's specious reasoning which is based on the false idea that voting for a candidate represents consent to be governed by that candidate alone, and thus you don't consent to anyone else governing you instead - meaning that if you don't vote you didn't consent to anyone's governance. The reason it's false is that it totally disregards the tried tested concept of popular sovereignty and attempts to replace it with a poorly thought out alternative called individual sovereignty, and it also ignores the fact that voting is a privilege that one can choose to exercise or not, rather than consent to be governed.
Is your crystal ball that good? You can look into it and know what I would or would not do? I'm calling you on your fearmongering. This is related to the "we've always done it this way" argument as well as an appeal to consequences.
You of all people have no business complaining about fearmongering with your criticism of the government's "gun under the table". And in any case, I'm not fearmongering. I'm stating that we have no way to predict what a given individual might do once they've declared that they aren't held accountable to any authority but their own. It's all well and good to talk about people governing themselves, but most people are not very good at doing that without some kind of external framework.
What is missing is your proof of authority.
Funny, I was about to ask you the same question. Where's your authority to do whatever you want in this town? Where's your authority to ignore the fact that this mayor was elected by a majority of the people who voted in that election, and thus to ignore whatever laws he puts in place? Because that's what you're effectively claiming - that you have the right to do what you please, and if someone else dislikes it, screw them. Even if you, personally, are responsible in the choices you make, that is no guarantee that everyone would be. In fact, considering the sheer number of things that people do which harm other people in some way, that's a pretty strong indication that a sizable number of people wouldn't be responsible towards others in the choices they make.
That's why we have governments, laws, and all those other things that make up the external framework I mentioned. They're ways to get people to be responsible towards each other - and yes, that does sometimes involve forcing them to be, or else. I'm not willing to throw that all by the wayside to try out your idealized system, because idealized systems just don't seem to work very well in the real world. The tendency of things to go wrong tends to screw anything up that doesn't have a way to cope with it, and I haven't seen any indication that your idea can cope with things going wrong.
So the mayor's authority is the authority of the people of the town...?
How did the people of the town get authority over me, that they could then give to the mayor?
It's the authority of the people of the town over the territory claimed by the town. Unless your specific claim to a piece of that territory predates the formation of the town, the only way you could have acquired it is through the offices of the town. If you buy a piece of land, for example, you might notice that the deed is not in your name, it's in the name of the previous owner. You have to go to whatever office the town has that deals with real estate and get a new notarized deed printed in your name for it to be legal. They have to check to make sure you actually did go through that transaction where you bought the land instead of just sneaking onto their property and stealing the deed, if nothing else.
But let's say that your property is actually outside the town; you aren't a resident, but you go there to buy and sell things. In that case, you're a visitor, and are obligated to abide by the laws the townspeople have set over that territory (such as paying sales tax, having a permit to sell stuff, etc) while you're there. It's the same way that you have the right to set rules for visitors to your own property. If they break those rules, I highly doubt you'll accept them saying that you don't have the authority to do anything to them, and it's the same thing with a town.
You can elect anybody you want to speak for you. You can NOT elect anybody to speak for me.
You can elect anybody you want to tell you what to do. You can NOT elect anybody to tell me what to do.
So I assume you have no objections to Mexicans coming north to do as they please, to ignore all the laws passed by every jurisdiction in favor of what they think should be done instead. You see, that's what happens when you act like individuals are equally sovereign instead of the people (as a whole) being sovereign. You are basically saying that everyone has the right to do what they think is best; they don't have to care about what you think is best. And if what they think is best happens to screw you over, well, sucks to be you.
Make shit up much?
The sovereignty is equal.
No, it is not; there is no such thing as equal sovereignty. If I invite you onto my property, you do not have any
sovereignty there to make decisions regarding it, because it isn't yours. And you have no sovereignty to resist me ejecting you from my property, with force if necessary, for the same reason.
The people who reside in a town are sovereign over that town as a whole. You, being a single resident of that town, have no individual sovereignty to exert over any part of that town; it isn't shared equally between the town's residents (and non-residents), it resides within the people as a whole. The town doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the people who reside there, and the mayor, being the elected representative of those people, has the authority to make decisions about the town, given him by the people who reside there. That includes your residence and property, if it happens to be inside the town, because the fact that you happen to reside there or even own it gives you no special rights to ignore the sovereignty of the people as a whole over the town as a whole.