Theory of Consent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Consent theory. (Discuss) |
In the absence of expressed consent (see Consent Theory), the State (at least in Westminster Democracies such as the US and Commonwealth of Nations countries), assumes that consent has been given by the populace for conventions of convenience, the classic example being that we all stop at red lights. All state legislative and police powers are executed under this premise, despite the parallel supposition of equality of all "subjects" under the law, and the lack of expressed consent on the part of those being policed. This is why it is called the Theory of Consent -- because no express consent has been obtained, the Powers That Be work on an assumed premise, which they acknowledge is merely theoretical in nature...
The most obvious question regarding the Theory is simply whether all members, or any given member, can realistically be taken to assent to being governed. But the lack of any practical resolution to that question perhaps succeeds in concealing the greater problem for Those In Authority, which is "governed by whom?". It is a long stretch from "I assent in principle to the idea that we need some common government with agreed and publicised laws", to "I agree to be governed by you and whomever you designate appropriate to govern me".
Beyond this question lies a third, even supposing the first two were to be settled expressly with certain designated parties put "at the helm", so to speak, then what occurs when dissatisfaction arises with their rule? Some propose a Right of Rebellion as a way to rescue the validity of the concept of Theory of Consent, ie that we Consent unless we are in Rebellion. Just what should happen to Rebels at times of general Consent is rarely formalised in Constitution, and is not explicitely laid out as part of the Theory of Consent, but examples of consequence can be found in the record of historical events.
A number of proposals exist for resolving the issue of who governs with minimal issue, and several are considered "works in progress" by a large number of adherents. However it is clear at this date to any observer that there are dissenters at all three of the above catching points.
