Topic: Consent of the Governed (Read 2799 times)

As prisoners, they still maintain rights and the state causing physical harm to prisoners by withholding food and water is considered unethical and likely illegal. Because there are restrictions in place, by definition they DO NOT have complete control over the subsistence of the prisoners.

Hamilton said its a general rule.  Its either a general rule or its situational.  As you just said that "there is a minority whos will will not bend or break."  That means Hamilton was wrong.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

IRA prisoner are an interesting example of people whose subsistence was totally under government control.  Their will never broke.  Their commander in chief, a man responsible for 100s of killings and bombings, is Deputy Prime Minister today.

It is not just true, it is a fact. If you withhold subsistence ANYONE will break, be it psychologically or physically, it is reality. Your example is not representative of the statement, because if they truly had control over his subsistence he would be dead in a week. You can keep repeating your statement over and over again like you always do, but it makes it no more factual.

it is NOT untrue ... it is situational.

the will bends to needs for survival... and often it breaks... for the majority.

there is a minority whos will will not bend or break.

this has been written about many times by leaders, philosophers/thinkers,  think tanks, foundations,  and intelligence services/operatives.

Of course you are correct that lack of food and water makes people easier to overpower physically.  But the Alexander Hamilton quote is: "In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." That's simply untrue.

Actually Hawker, you completely missed the point. When he used the word "subsistence" he literally meant controlling the food, the water, the shelter, etc. Are you telling me that if you have a strong enough will you don't need to eat or drink any more? I think that was his point exactly. Remove people's ability to feed themselves, and it is only a matter of time before they are weak enough to overpower.

Way to not read my post...

Um - thats crazy.  McGlinchy wasn't some isolated maniac - he was leader of a movement with a lot of support.  A vociferous minority who felt the majority were misguided. So you have this guy who is setting up his own state with his own little army terrorising the democratically elected state.  And your solution is to ask him to leave his army and community of supporters behind and secede on his own?  

Way to miss the point...

I think McGlinchy should have been able to secede, but with a few caveats. Firstly and most obviously, he should only secede with his own property and person (or family, if willing). Secondly, he should only convince thru persuasion, not coercion or violence, solicit followers/disciples. Your "handing people over" to "violent idealists" comment doesn't even come close to either of those blatantly obvious requirements.

And finally, should there be any "political dissidents" or "political refugees" who would want to immigrate, they should be allowed to leave his jurisdiction at their leisure, or at the very least, petition anyone they choose to assist them in extricating themselves and their things from their tyrannical environs, if need be.

If you understood Spooner, you wouldn't be making lame comparisons to your scumbag McGlinchy. McGlinchy was inciting riots and generally oppressing others, not putting down external insurgencies and invasions from abroad (there's nothing enlightening about political communism, republican or otherwise).

I highly doubt, had McGlinchy been able to secede (given the chance), he would have been able to last very long on his own since nobody likes dealing with a violent tyrannical nut-job. At the very least he would have starved himself out, or gone out crusading (plundering) and had his head handed to him.

From what I can tell, "libertarians" and "generally conservative" individuals, don't fight (in the violent sense) for a cause, they educate and persuade as much as possible. At the most, they use self defense since that's what their belief system is. As far as I can tell, McGlinchy did none of those things. Hardly a shining example.

I understand that, and agree that an action (which may also be theft) which threatens someone's life may justify jailing the offender (though strictly speaking one would probably have to offer the choice of jail or being placed in a similarly risky position; most would probably choose confinement). However, theft alone does not, even in the case of a repeat offender. There is some leeway in the rule of proportional response to allow for sentimental value, etc., but only in terms of the degree of response, not the kind.

No - its not even close to having an insurgency going on.  911 was unpleasant but a 1 off.  McGlincy and his like were active continually for 30 years.


You make my point perfectly.  Government is exactly like terrorism when you remove the concept of consent.  McGlinchy was not a moral cause gone amok and he most certainly was not a petty criminal - he was just an idealist fighting for a cause (republican communism) that the majority would not vote for.

Spooner would have said McGlinchy was entitled to secede and set up his own state.  Just like the South.  What he left out is that handing people over to the tender mercies of violent idealists is a form of tyranny even more severe than ruling by democratic majority.

If I remember correctly, we had something most people refer to as 9-11. I think that might qualify.

All law and "life devotion" is about some moral cause. Government is a perfect example of a "moral" cause that is nearly unstoppable. Your "petty" criminal McGlinchy is a simpleton compared to that of a much bigger operation (aka. government). You may look at him as a moral cause gone amuck, but I look at almost all forms of government as the same thing, with the notable exception that they have this definition they call "legal" which makes it all righteous for them and that simultaneously assuages their conscience.

Had McGlinchy the use of the law to leverage with, he'd likely still be alive today. Unfortunately (or fortunately) he wasn't that bright. I'd recommend to anybody that you not worry so much about the low-life criminals roaming the street, so much as you should the three-piece-suit politicos claiming to be so high and mighty. They're much more dangerous.

McGlinchy was not a criminal in the sense of someone who does bad things for personal gain.  He devoted his life to a cause and killed people to advance that cause.  He opposed democracy on the basis that "the people have no right to vote for something wrong" and never made a penny despite always having access to large amounts of cash.   If only he were a common criminal, then he would have been locked up after his first robbery and many lives have been spared.

What Hamilton got wrong is thinking that people with morals can be stopped if you control their jobs or money.  In fact, if someone believes in a moral cause, they are unstoppable.

If you are American, you don't have much experience of dealing with people like McGlinchey driving about your neighbourhood.  Those of us that do have that experience tend to regard a strong proactive state as an essential part of liberty.

I'm not disagreeing that it's necessary to stop a hardened criminal and that it might require violence. Only that's it's appropriate when exhausting other options and only when attacked or threatened with attack first. I would think Alexander was a pretty bright guy who understood the purpose of law and justice.

No.  History shows that when people believe in a cause, they can't be bought off with money.  If anything, the problem is that you have to kill some people to stop them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_McGlinchey

This guy spent his life with tons of cash from bank robberies yet in the end it took a hole in the head to stop him.  Jail, his wife being killed in front of his children, 24 hour surveillance, nothing stopped him.   

In short, your man Hamilton got that totally wrong.

You don't even need to look at Iraq or Afghanistan.  Yesterday (http://www.itn.co.uk/home/45735/School+bombed+in+Italy) a school in Italy was bombed a day before an anti-mafia rally.  The school was named after the wife of a murdered anti-mafia judge, murdered twenty years to the day beforehand.  In the bombing, one child was killed and several injured.  That's the alternative to "government by consent," what many here like to call the "tyranny of the majority" - it's "government without consent," and "tyranny of the minority."  Which do you prefer?

"In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." -Alexander Hamilton

Part of the problem is that back then stolen property, like a horse for example, could easily mean the end of the real owner's life. They could be prevented from growing their own food, or getting to town to find food for example. The importance of material possessions is subjective. We all own things that might seem meaningless to others that mean a lot to us personally. That is why theft is treated in such a way.

What's missing here is the rationale behind the right to self-defense. However, that's easy enough to grasp: if you steal someone else's property, you have no rational objection to raise when they come to take it back--or to take your property in retribution. What you do to others, they can legitimately do to you.

I do have to object to the "jail the offender" bit, however. Taking alienable property is in no way equivalent to coercively restricting someone's freedom of movement. Self-defense has to be proportional to the offense to be justified in this way.

The problem with claiming slaves as property is simply that they are, by definition, stolen property. The slave holder is laying false claim to another's inalienable rights of self-ownership.

Spooner was opposed to preventing secession by the south.  He was also opposed to slavery but the OPs quote was Spooner's rage at Civil War and at Reconstruction which he also felt was wrong.  

To our modern minds, it looks contradictory to oppose slavery and at the same time defend the right of the southern states to secede.  But thats because the myth that the Civil War was about abolishing slavery has become ingrained.  In Spooner's day, the war was seen as a war against secession and abolishing slavery was just one part of the war effort.