3 ms·

Here in this nation of the United States, we claim that the state derives its power from the consent of the governed. It's a novel concept, really. Obviously,

by sounds 9y ago

Here in this nation of the United States, we claim that the state derives its power from the consent of the governed. It's a novel concept, really. Obviously, if you like the idea of a powerful nation-state, you can try any number of other experiments, elsewhere. Those nations do not even try to veneer their actions with the consent of their populace.

QAPereo 9y ago
I think you’re taking my acknowledgement of reality to be an endorsement of it. You can’t hope to change anything if you’re living in a fantasy. The reality is that the government of “this here nation” can roll over you like you never existed. Want that to change? I do.
- sounds 9y ago
  Sorry, I was responding to your assessment of the situation as "laughable." I'm not laughing. Neither are you, right?
beat 9y ago
"Consent of the governed" means consent of society in general, not the consent of every individual to every action of the State. Society has long been okay with eminent domain. When things become unacceptable, we can elect legislators to change the laws and make them acceptable again. I don't hear a cry to end eminent domain in our elections, or see anyone in Congress making any effort in that direction. That's consent of the governed.
- sounds 9y ago
  Some people in society (generally those doing the taking) have long supported eminent domain. Eminent domain nevertheless has not been "long okay," it has been hotly contested in every case. That doesn't sound like "society is okay with it," unless you were on the take.
  - beat 9y ago
    Of course it's hotly contested. It involves taking property against the wishes of the property owner. But it's not contested by society in general, but rather those on the pointy end of the stick - many of whom are perfectly happy with the results of previous eminent domains (ie highways). One could say society in general is "on the take". Which gets back to my contention that your "property" is yours only by the consent of everyone else.
    - sounds 9y ago
      But I do not say society in general is "on the take." I'm saying you are, which is why you contest that my property is not mine. That's a pretty narrow, twisty way of defining property, and it's not upheld by US case law.

by sounds 9y ago

QAPereo 9y ago

I think you’re taking my acknowledgement of reality to be an endorsement of it. You can’t hope to change anything if you’re living in a fantasy. The reality is that the government of “this here nation” can roll over you like you never existed. Want that to change? I do.

sounds 9y ago
Sorry, I was responding to your assessment of the situation as "laughable." I'm not laughing. Neither are you, right?

beat 9y ago

"Consent of the governed" means consent of society in general, not the consent of every individual to every action of the State. Society has long been okay with eminent domain. When things become unacceptable, we can elect legislators to change the laws and make them acceptable again. I don't hear a cry to end eminent domain in our elections, or see anyone in Congress making any effort in that direction. That's consent of the governed.

sounds 9y ago
Some people in society (generally those doing the taking) have long supported eminent domain. Eminent domain nevertheless has not been "long okay," it has been hotly contested in every case. That doesn't sound like "society is okay with it," unless you were on the take.
- beat 9y ago
  Of course it's hotly contested. It involves taking property against the wishes of the property owner. But it's not contested by society in general, but rather those on the pointy end of the stick - many of whom are perfectly happy with the results of previous eminent domains (ie highways). One could say society in general is "on the take". Which gets back to my contention that your "property" is yours only by the consent of everyone else.
  - sounds 9y ago
    But I do not say society in general is "on the take." I'm saying you are, which is why you contest that my property is not mine. That's a pretty narrow, twisty way of defining property, and it's not upheld by US case law.