“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.”
We can agree on that. Specifically, in post 320 you wrote (among other things):
If I understand you correctly, you wrote that you can't "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'" while I wrote "I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed..." That troubles me about the words "consent of the governed"; we can't, in your words, "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'". We don't know if there are any.
I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.
How did I change the subject?
You quoted the Declaration Of Independence, emphasizing the words "from the consent of the governed", and in the next paragraph, the first in that post of your own composition, started writing about “all men are created equal” and went on about "equality" with no obvious to me transition, connection or tie in to "consent of the governed".
That strikes me as a change of subject from "consent of the governed" to "all men are created equal".
Now in your last post, 330, you did write “'all men are created equal,' a phrase upon which the phrase 'consent of the governed' logically and genetically depends", which makes the connection, but you didn't write it till paragraph 7 and it being in post 330 didn't do me any good in my post 327 response to your post 326. (I'm not convinced that "consent of the governed" logically and genetically depends on "all men are created equal".)
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.
I do not contend that.
If you are among any of these last named, I can certainly understand why you would be violently opposed to “consent of the governed.”
"If."
I'm not "violently opposed to 'consent of the governed'”.
As I wrote above: