Flatty, I was just waiting for someone to bring out the old "voting is consent" argument. Thank you for bringing it up.
You have, unfortunately, not presented a clear argument as to how you go from "we elect our leaders" to "the United States of America exists." Even if your former point was proven, it would not prove the latter, unless you can mount a logical argument on how to go from one to the other.
My friends and I could make up an organization (such as, say, "Canadians for Global Warming") and start a mock vote for a leader, but existence of the vote does not mean the organization must exist. Even worse, we could beat up other people and make a vote on who gets to dictate the intensity and nature of subsequent beatings, but that would not make us an organization either- just a bunch of criminals deciding how to beat up someone.
Your argument also fails to fulfill the consent burden of proof, for many reasons, including the following:
* Voting in itself is not proof of a consensual action. As Spooner eloquently notes in No Treason, voting is elicited under duress (if you don't vote, other people will take your rights away from you, instead of you taking their rights away from them), and as such cannot be consensual by any legal or moral definition.
In truth, in the case of individuals their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent... On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money renders service, and foregoes the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former... Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented.
* Even if voting was consensual, it could not represent consent, since there is no option to vote AGAINST the "United States of America." All votes implicitly support the system in place, because they are votes for one candidate against another.
* Even if both points above were true, vote turnouts to federal elections are less than 50%. Ergo, voting can only represent consent of at best 50% of all those who are supposedly in the territory of the "United States of America."
I'm afraid that, unless you post answers to these points or otherwise prove your case, your submission is rejected.
Show Posts
), one would be opening the door to anarchy, which you know very well is essentially the absence of government! Again, it's a necessary condition of government.