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?
“First and most important, why did you change the subject?”
How did I change the subject? The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove the fact. Demonstrate in detail in what manner the subject has been changed.
The subject was “the consent of the governed,” was it not? Can we at least agree on that?
I introduced the context in which the phrase “consent of the governed” appears, although I can hardly believe anyone even dimly aware of American History would likely understand otherwise (not even Lenin, Pelosi, or 0bama). I am unaware of any other context in which “consent of the governed” appears, or of any other context from which “consent of the governed” might be taken.
For thirteen years, ever since the close of the Seven Years War between GB & France, the British “Colonials” had been in dispute with King George and Parliament over the degree of control King & Parliament might have over the colonies (King & Parliament claimed total; the colonies claimed none without their consent and then only with representation). Gradually the Colonialists came to realize King & Parliament were never going to say anything but “fppt!” to either “consent” or “representation.” Hence Mr. Jefferson’s remarkable tome, including the much disputed “Consent of the Governed.”
Historians seem to be in general agreement that at the beginning of the American War For Independence about a third of the Colonials were patriots, about a third wanted to remain loyal to King & Country, and the other third simply wished everyone else would just go away. So, in that you are approximately correct. Five years later, when Cornwallis finally gave it up, that action signaling the impending end, I don’t know what number composed the mix, but a good many of the “Loyalists” packed up and moved north to Canada (whether they wanted to or not).
So, I guess you can claim we have never consensually existed with a legitimate government, if your contention is that the only acceptable alternative to “consent of the governed” is criminal activity or armed insurrection. Although criminal activity, along with the claim of religious exclusivity, might be thought aimed more directly against Society rather than simply “government.”
“Consent of the governed” can mean something no more complicated than consenting to be governed rather than ruled. You seemed to have no contextual problem with the Jeffersonian expression “all men are created equal,” a phrase upon which the phrase “consent of the governed” logically and genetically depends, but I guess “consent of the governed” totally defeats you. Just as the Colonials had a number of options before armed insurrection, so do we. As did they, between the Seven Years War and the American War For Independence, we seem to be handicapped by a population that, by half or more, doesn’t care if it is governed or ruled, so long as they have their flat screens, their housing allowance, their booze, their sex tools, and their Email texting.
We also have our Separatists and Supremacists (which we used to call hermits) and there are, of course, others who believe we can exist without a government of any sort (although they seem to be primarily opposed to being “ruled” without making any distinction between that and being “governed”). And there are, of course, those who are convinced that the people are helpless to govern themselves and must be ruled (for their own good).
If you are among any of these last named, I can certainly understand why you would be violently opposed to “consent of the governed.”