Voting and Consent
27, Jan. 2016
To state that 'voting implies consent' and 'not voting implies consent to give up your voice' is to make a fallacious argument concerning honest, voluntary, and peaceful offerings of consent. It rejects the notion of the following sentiment...
'Get out if you don't like it,' 'we can't have multiple sets of rules,' and 'you need to recognize the rules society has consented to work with if you really want to change anything,' are all further ideas built upon the failure of the speaker to understand what consent is, where it is derived, and why!
A child no more grants consent to being born than does he consent to being taught obedience to rule of law when his teachers, parents, guardians do not teach what consent is, what self ownership is. So when the individual comes to the realization that he or she owns his or herself and recognizes that they were never given full autonomy over their choices, opting out of the system society has set up with restrictions becomes clear and a prison.
To speak out against such blissfully accepted tyranny is blasphemy and rarely tolerated to the extent which such victims of the status quo will work towards enduring just to change a single mind peacefully. Consent is always acknowledged with proponents of the status quo, but with stipulations.
These stipulations are always due to the failure of the status quo to understand the foundations of their own moral philosophies beyond them being, 'inherent,' 'of divine intervention,' and the damning statement of 'I just know what is right and wrong.'
The problem with society-the status quo-is it's failure to break down the moral philosophies it holds to and understand them well enough to create clearly defined parameters which may be equally and universally applied to every sentient being capable of reasoning. Yet this is never done in full or if it is the individual doing so creates justifications that are often lesser variations of the status quo's justification for violating consent; that such must be done today to set the frame work for tomorrow.
And what is that frame work? What does it include?
It includes everything used to create that frame work. This means that even the justifications for violating consent just a little, for justifying not following acting in absolute lock-step with one's moral philosophy creates a precedent that will be used to justify the refusal of future generations to understand their own moral philosophies and create a new frame work-regardless of it being an improvement or not-that will still allow for justifications of not committing wholly to a moral philosophy which recognizes that moral does not need immoral to exist, but amoral.
In other words, people understanding that morality is founded not on the difference between moral and immoral and instead founded upon what is amoral is the foundation of all sentient interactions which recognize the value each individual places on his or her life in relation to others'. For you see, the noble intent of governments like the United States is to protect and offer services to those not capable of necessarily acquiring them on their own and setting standards of behavior based on the majority's whims only loosely funneled into a few elected representatives which manipulate the rules to the advantages of those paying their bills.
It may not have started that way, though it is how such things almost always turn out. And when they do not, there is always corruption to be certain.
Just because there is relatively little corruption makes no difference. So long as all being governed without consent of honest, voluntary, and peaceful granting are being governed in a manner where the sins of the previous generation are taught to be accepted as a responsibility each successive generation we will never break free of the shackles of tyranny.