What else are you not a “little vague” on, besides your disagreement with the phrase “consent of the governed”? You seem to be a “little vague” about the existence, or the number, of public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” but who knows for sure, since you have positioned yourself so as to be able to declare your “vagueness,” or the lack thereof, after the fact. Likewise, you seem a “little vague” about the existence, or the number of, governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the governed.”
“a change of subject from "consent of the governed" to "all men are created equal".”
context noun
text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning.
surrounding conditions: the circumstances or events that form the environment within which something exists or takes place
Are you a “little vague” about the importance of context? Do you dispute the role that context has in supporting our understanding of an idea? a philosophy? a concept (political or otherwise)? I explained to you that “consent of the governed” exists within the context of The Declaration, adding that I knew of no other context and also expressing some astonishment that anyone would be unaware of the context. Are you aware of some other context? Do you propose another context in which “consent of the governed” might be considered? If so, what?
I also explained that “consent of the governed” depended, genetically and logically, upon the idea “all men are created equal.” “Consent of the governed” would make no sense if “all men” (meaning all of mankind) were not created equal. Without the equality of all men (all Mankind) we could, indeed, make a distinction between “Rulers” and the “Ruled.” What about that understanding do you find a “little vague”? Likewise I explained that “consent of the governed” could be nothing more complicated than consenting to be governed, rather than ruled. Do you fail to comprehend the difference between being “governed” and being “ruled” as I use the terms? The distinction hinges on why I note a difference between governments that “govern” and regimes that “rule.”
Perhaps you find the difference to be too “vague” to apprehend. What else might you be “a little vague” about, I wonder? Perhaps anything you don’t wish to understand?
“No, thanks.”