[Demidog]

Consent for basic constitutional function of the government is presumed in the very existence of the government

Unless consent is forced.

Foreign intervention abroad is not in our constitution. Thus I don't consent voluntarily to supporting such a war effort.

And by the way, altruism is a fraud. I'm surprised that you seek to legitimize it. Even Rand doesn't do that.

[annalex]

Regardless of the actual text of the Constitution, I don't understand how a society can have a goverment unless the entire domain of foreign policy and the entire domain of war making is wholesale given to the government. That is because the other nations will view us not as individuals but as a national unity. So, how are you going to withdraw consent? There is no mechanism for you to do it equitably. Let's say you withdraw consent for a foreign adventure. How do you do it? You hold on to a portion of your taxes. Now, let's say the government's adventure brought you a benefit after all. It appears that you've freeloaded.

I don't see a more equitable mechanism of consent in matters of national interest than majoritarian consent at election time. Do you?

About altruist foreign policy, I agree with Rand. Altruistic intervention is rightful with respect to the nation that is intervened when that nation is ruled by a government that usurped power. It is rightful with respect to us citizens if it is justified by the national interest. It is rightful as long as the government can present a plausible case for the national interest. If that case is falty, then the nation, being a free nation, would vote the government out of office. Till then -- till the election time -- the citizens may agitate against the foreign policy, but they may not legally withhold consent.

I'll probably re-post this, with modifications, on the other thread, where LSJohn should see it.