Replies

The subject was “the consent of the governed,” was it not? Can we at least agree on that?

We can agree on that. Specifically, in post 320 you wrote (among other things):

Perhaps you would care to hazard to name a few public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” just as you might wish to name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the government” (sic, I assume you meant "governed".). I leave that task to you. I cannot. I responded in post 325 with:

As to the "consent of the governed", the words trouble me. I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed on a national scale, at least not in all matters. You in turn responded in post 326 quoting my words “As to the 'consent of the governed', the words trouble me”, but that's only part of what I wrote.

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:

I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.

“I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.”

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?