Consent of the governed does not mean, agreement of the governed to specific measures. No does it mean majority rule, which can easily be tyranny of the majorit

Consent of the governed does not mean, agreement of the governed to specific measures. No does it mean majority rule, which can easily be tyranny of the majority (possibly, the worst kind of tyranny, because it's possibly the strongest kind). One can easily consent to something without actively participating. The author of this oversimplified piece doesn't seem to even acknowledge a category of decisions that people might consent to, even if they disagree with them. It's obviously foolish to say that government is acting without consent, if it makes decisions that you do not agree with, although you are willing (and may even actively choose) to live under the system for making decisions. Nor, of course, does consent always mean actively choosing; it can mean accepting things. The concept of consent of the governed was articulated most effectively by Locke, whose philosophy was a key inspiration for the American revolution. To Locke, consent of the governed had nothing to do with whether or not people agreed with specific laws. Rather, consent of the governed was the foundation of civil society -- that is a society governed by rules and laws. Locke identified the alternative as a state of war -- government by bare force, unconstrained by the rules of civil society. When the consent of the governed is lost, it means that the people no longer accept the legitimacy of the government (sometimes stated as: government has lost the mandate of heaven, or some other revolutionary slogan). It means, change of the form of government, not just the laws and not just the holders of power. It usually doesn't come out well. But (rarely) it creates something new, and better.