“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis mine)
Do you recognize the above phrase? Are you equally troubled by the expression “all men are created equal”? How far do you suppose any responsive government should take the meaning of that expression on a national scale? Should it demand that every person must have the same number of bathrooms in every home? The same square feet? The same climate control? The same quality and quantity of food and clothing? The identical level of education?
By the same token, are governments “instituted among men” to control their every movement and choice, or do governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person? Which sort of government would have your consent? Would you prefer a ruling regime of unlimited powers? Would your choice hinge on whether or not you are a member of the ruling elite?
I’m not demanding you agree with me. I’m simply asking you think a little about the proposition.
Yes.
Are you equally troubled by the expression “all men are created equal”?
Not as long as it means they are equally endowed with equal unalienable rights; that they may not constrain the rights of others by virtue of their creation.
How far do you suppose any responsive government should take the meaning of that expression on a national scale?
As far as necessary to secure the unalienable rights the government was instituted to secure.
Should it demand that every person must have the same number of bathrooms in every home?
No.
The same square feet?
No.
The same climate control?
No.
The same quality and quantity of food and clothing?
No.
The identical level of education?
No.
By the same token, are governments “instituted among men” to control their every movement and choice, or do governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person?
Just governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person over whom the government justly holds sway.
Which sort of government would have your consent?
The sort that exists and derives its “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person over whom the government justly holds sway.
Would you prefer a ruling regime of unlimited powers?
No.
Would your choice hinge on whether or not you are a member of the ruling elite?
I've never been a member of a ruling elite as far as I know, but I don't believe so.
I answered your questions, now please answer mine:
First and most important, why did you change the subject? You started off quoting me on "consent of the governed", marginally addressed that, and then went off sideways. Are you unable to discuss "consent of the governed" or unwilling?
When our side won the Revolutionary War and established a new government, did that government have the "consent of the governed" when the particular people in question had been Tories, Loyalists? Should it not have governed them?
Are you acquainted with the Sovereign Citizen Movement? Basically, they don't consent to be governed by any of our governments. Should our governments leave them alone because they don't consent?
Did we not establish government in Germany and Japan after WWII and did those governed give their consent?
Have the various criminal organizations in the US given their consent to be governed by other than their own hierarchies?
Is consent really consent if it is forced by circumstance or superior power?
Has everyone subject to our National, State and Local governments freely given consent to be governed? Did you ask them? Did anyone ask them for their consent?