The theory of John Locke, a famous philosopher, on consent is rather intriguing; if slightly odd. His term is “tacit consent.”
Tacit consent is, in essence, consent by action. For example, a man tacitly consents to being governed by a certain system by simple staying in the country. In effect, you are consenting simply by standing on the ground of that country.
Does this make sense? Another example—a man exercised his right to vote. He voted for the candidate who would suppress him the least. Does that give consent to the government? Say he voted because he wanted to choose what he considered the better of two evils; the choice that would lead him closer to the end of the system he lived under! Perhaps he didn’t have money to move away. Does he still give tacit consent?
There are many flaws in the theory, even as there are many arguable good points. The main question is this—is Locke right? Do people really give tacit consent just because they don’t vocally and actively pursue means to demonstrate their displeasure?
What are price controls? What are people controls? More importantly, what’s the difference?
Politicians will tell you the’re the same. Votes are what counts for them and if they told you the truth they’d never get elected. But politicians are all talk, no action anyway. So who trusts them anymore?
A price control is a people control. By controlling the prices of food, you control how the store-owners regulate their prices and you control how the people buy their food, thereby controlling one of the most essential things in human life.
By controlling the prices, you control how people act and live, thereby depriving them of the essential freedom of living life freely, without unwanted outside interference. Continue reading
There are five requirements that a government must pass before it can be considered a government: Authority, Law, Sanctions, Sovereignty and Succession.
As far as authority goes, the family is right up there. Mom and Dad are the authority in the family. All problems and major decisions are run by them.
Concerning law, the family is a prime example: the parents lay down the law and the kids obey. Simple, except that most of the time, especially with teens, they disobey. It’s a big problem.
Sanctions. This one’s a biggie. The parents inflict punishments on the children if they disobey the law of the family. Without question, this is one of the staples in family government.
Succession is taken for granted: although there are exceptions, most kids will likely continue the same regime which governed the household they grew up in. Continue reading
A certain boy grows up in a small town in Kentucky. His parents raise him to be honest and moral and he grows up in good standing in the community. As he gets older, he marries, becomes involved in various community programs and overall earns himself the name and reputation of Mr. Goodguy.
The people of the district, seeing what an honest, stolid individual this is, convince him to run for a seat in the state’s senate. Obligingly, Mr. Goodguy agrees. He wins. His campaign message was from the prospect of any ordinary citizen: Reduce taxes, regulations, etc.
He arrives in the capital and is immediately befriended by an affable Southerner lobbyist named Jack. Jack takes him out, invites him to his private hunting lodge and overall gradually works himself into Mr. Goodguy’s confidence. Once there, he proceeds to blow a lot of his political rat’s nest into Mr. Goodguy’s ear. Being trusting and a bit naïve, Mr. Goodguy readily accepts this and starts to vote on bills that he wouldn’t have if he had stuck to his own ideology. But, being drawn into the net, he starts turning the other way and before he can realize what he’s done, he’s neck deep with all the other politicians and has forgotten his campaign promises.
Meanwhile, back home, the folks are starting to talk. What happened to Mr. Goodguy? He’s voting on all the wrong bills!! Continue reading
The question for this essay is this: “If the state is strong enough to do something good for you, can it also do something bad to you?”
This statement is very, very true. The state claims it’s doing the best it can by providing welfare and food stamps, etc. All this (made worse by the Obama years) simply and inexcusably makes the people worse off than before.
By providing welfare and all that other stuff that makes people dependent, you are essentially setting a mindset: you are telling the people that the government is your only hope, that you can never make it on your own and that you cannot make your fortune or money or whatever it is that they are providing, yourself.
That is one of the biggest, fattest lies I’ve ever heard. Continue reading
John Locke was an English philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1704 AD. He wrote and discussed his views of anti-absolutism—meaning no absolute government or monarchy.
Locke believes in the state of nature. This state of nature, he claims, is ideal. In his state of nature there is no government. If there is no government there are no taxes, no oppression. People have their own rights. Total rights. Continue reading