No. The purpose of the state is solely to secure and protect the natural rights of its citizens (life , liberty, health, possessions). If the state violates this responsibility, the people have a right to overthrow it and install one that will.
An extreme challenge to tacit consent by choice of jurisdictional domicile could be found amongst almost every colonised peoples. In my example the Commonwealth of Australia and the Sate of New South Wales occupy my traditional lands (the Wiradjuri People in my case), so compounding barriers negate consent with duress. Low wealth, poor education, criminal records for some, spiritual obligations (to me 'religious' would be a better choice of wording), law and lore, common law rights, and more cut off alternative places to be and close doors on potential alternative nationalities even for those who might be willing to abandon everything for true consent. I like Locke's foundational principle of consent, but where that relies on the assumption that where you live determines that you have consented the idea breaks down. Indigenous (First Nations) Peoples are a clear example of the anywhere's vs somewhere's of David Goodhart < www.goodreads.com/book/show/32446555-the-road-to-somewhere > that is the prime global political malady of today < www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-revolt-of-the-somewheres-11551483212 >. I cannot abandon my "somewhere", my cultural rights and obligations, my land, my ancestral ties, etc., so I cannot demonstrate denial of consent by leaving and becoming an "anywhere" and this means my consent is construed under duress. I think was on the right path, consent is compact from which legitimacy derives, but proof of consent must take another form than the "somewhere" you live in. This also opens and separates the thorny issue of what denial of consent looks like. If you where able to refuse consent but remain living in the same "somewhere" then how do you interface with those around you who are consenting, and thus bound by the fiat of the government? Roman Canon Law has been operating in Australia as a parallel legal system, exposed by investigations into pedophilia in the Church, where even state police handed suspects to Church authorities for trial and punishment (or as the scandals have shown, to not be tried at all). Attempts have been made to permit Aboriginal law (by more than 300 nations and their different legal systems) to also operate as Canon Law has but all are deeply rejected by the majority and all have serious compatibility issues operating in the same space, at the same time, over the same people, but with different outcomes. Only one system can operate with integrity in a place at a time, so how could I be free to ignore a law that I don't consent to? The solution of reframing consent from where you live to some other thing must also solve the issue of creating competing parallel legal systems. I cannot opt out of being "Australia" to be legally "Wiradjuri" and at liberty to speed past my local school when the speed limit for "Australian's" is 40kph. But to be compelled to be "Australian" because of where I live is a violation of my right consent. We need a solution to this issue. I believe consent to be essential for legitimacy and willing adherence by the majority to law without tyrannical (and costly) enforcement, but how can I refuse consent whilst living in the same place and without creating a competing parallel legal framework?
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.” Supreme Court 1796- This decision has never been overturned: United States Supreme Court Decision from 1796- [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.] "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." Consent, is only attained when people engage honestly and under condition of FULL DISCLOSURE. No contract is valid without FULL DISCLOSURE under the Common Law, which is why the remedy to claim Common Law preserved at Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 and the recourse preserved at 1-103.6 is so very precious. It allows us all to say, “Bull Crap!” to these criminals in suits, void ALL their claims and contracts that have been created under conditions of stealth, inequity, semantic deceit, and non-disclosure, and send them and people like you packing. If there is such a thing as tacit (implied is another name for it) consent, then there would never be a rape claim ever. 'She gave tacit consent' (meaning she didn't say NO). Since she must soberly and of sound mind give consent, there then is no such thing as tacit consent. Same premise applies to everything else. Either one give proper consent or there is no consent. Consent must not be under any kind of fraud on either side. All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.” “The Supreme Court has warned, “Because of what appears to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes-ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts].” (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);” I do not consent. I do not agree. I do not have to leave either. I withdraw consent to be governed. Without prejudice, all rights reserved. Non Assumpsit.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Great exposition.
We are a Republic. - Thanks for the video. Cheers.
I got my concepts cleared.
Can you make another video on "Locke's relevance in today's world"
Great work! I appreciate this.
Great explanation
Does locke believe that all subsections of government under the umbrella of democracy deserve our allegiance, even if corrupt?
No. The purpose of the state is solely to secure and protect the natural rights of its citizens (life , liberty, health, possessions). If the state violates this responsibility, the people have a right to overthrow it and install one that will.
An extreme challenge to tacit consent by choice of jurisdictional domicile could be found amongst almost every colonised peoples. In my example the Commonwealth of Australia and the Sate of New South Wales occupy my traditional lands (the Wiradjuri People in my case), so compounding barriers negate consent with duress. Low wealth, poor education, criminal records for some, spiritual obligations (to me 'religious' would be a better choice of wording), law and lore, common law rights, and more cut off alternative places to be and close doors on potential alternative nationalities even for those who might be willing to abandon everything for true consent. I like Locke's foundational principle of consent, but where that relies on the assumption that where you live determines that you have consented the idea breaks down. Indigenous (First Nations) Peoples are a clear example of the anywhere's vs somewhere's of David Goodhart < www.goodreads.com/book/show/32446555-the-road-to-somewhere > that is the prime global political malady of today < www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-revolt-of-the-somewheres-11551483212 >. I cannot abandon my "somewhere", my cultural rights and obligations, my land, my ancestral ties, etc., so I cannot demonstrate denial of consent by leaving and becoming an "anywhere" and this means my consent is construed under duress. I think was on the right path, consent is compact from which legitimacy derives, but proof of consent must take another form than the "somewhere" you live in. This also opens and separates the thorny issue of what denial of consent looks like. If you where able to refuse consent but remain living in the same "somewhere" then how do you interface with those around you who are consenting, and thus bound by the fiat of the government? Roman Canon Law has been operating in Australia as a parallel legal system, exposed by investigations into pedophilia in the Church, where even state police handed suspects to Church authorities for trial and punishment (or as the scandals have shown, to not be tried at all). Attempts have been made to permit Aboriginal law (by more than 300 nations and their different legal systems) to also operate as Canon Law has but all are deeply rejected by the majority and all have serious compatibility issues operating in the same space, at the same time, over the same people, but with different outcomes. Only one system can operate with integrity in a place at a time, so how could I be free to ignore a law that I don't consent to? The solution of reframing consent from where you live to some other thing must also solve the issue of creating competing parallel legal systems. I cannot opt out of being "Australia" to be legally "Wiradjuri" and at liberty to speed past my local school when the speed limit for "Australian's" is 40kph. But to be compelled to be "Australian" because of where I live is a violation of my right consent. We need a solution to this issue. I believe consent to be essential for legitimacy and willing adherence by the majority to law without tyrannical (and costly) enforcement, but how can I refuse consent whilst living in the same place and without creating a competing parallel legal framework?
Paragraphs next time.
Το ġιѵ∈ сοηѕ∈ητ үου ӎυѕτ Ь∈ сοηѕсιουѕӏү αŵαṛ∈.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Τһιѕ ιѕ ŵһү үου сαηηοτ ġιѵ∈ сοηѕ∈ητ ŵһ∈η үου αṛ∈ ďṛυηκ οṛ υηď∈ṛ τһ∈ ιηҒӏυ∈ηс∈ οҒ ďṛυġѕ.
Ταсιτ сοηѕ∈ητ ďο∈ѕ ηοτ ιηѵοӏѵ∈ сοηѕсιουѕ αŵαṛ∈η∈ѕѕ.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Τһ∈ṛ∈Ғοṛ∈ ταсιτ сοηѕ∈ητ ιѕ ŵṛοηġ, Ғαӏѕ∈ αηď ďο∈ѕ ηοτ ∈ӽιѕτ.
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.”
Supreme Court 1796- This decision has never been overturned:
United States Supreme Court Decision from 1796- [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.] "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent."
Consent, is only attained when people engage honestly and under condition of FULL DISCLOSURE. No contract is valid without FULL DISCLOSURE under the Common Law, which is why the remedy to claim Common Law preserved at Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 and the recourse preserved at 1-103.6 is so very precious. It allows us all to say, “Bull Crap!” to these criminals in suits, void ALL their claims and contracts that have been created under conditions of stealth, inequity, semantic deceit, and non-disclosure, and send them and people like you packing.
If there is such a thing as tacit (implied is another name for it) consent, then there would never be a rape claim ever.
'She gave tacit consent' (meaning she didn't say NO).
Since she must soberly and of sound mind give consent, there then is no such thing as tacit consent.
Same premise applies to everything else. Either one give proper consent or there is no consent.
Consent must not be under any kind of fraud on either side.
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.”
“The Supreme Court has warned, “Because of what appears to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes-ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts].” (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);”
I do not consent. I do not agree. I do not have to leave either.
I withdraw consent to be governed.
Without prejudice, all rights reserved.
Non Assumpsit.