The State Rests on Consent of the Governed
I am spending three days in DC for some presentations on carbon tax issues. It was interesting to see the disparate reactions to the upset of Eric Cantor, among my acquaintances who live and breathe politics out here. The younger crowd was fired up at the toppling of the much better funded and establishment-backed Cantor. On the other hand, I talked with others who were aghast at how the radicals in the Tea Party would now be able to scare even those career Republicans who retain their seats and thereby make it harder to govern responsibly.
The lesson I take away from this episode is the point Mises often made: Even though the State may often seem incredibly powerful, it ultimately rests on the consent of the governed. If you doubt this statement, consider: In totalitarian regimes, the man on top is ruthless in his control of the media and educational system. If somebody puts up graffiti challenging the regime, it gets taken down immediately. This shows that even the worst despots recognize the importance of public opinion.
Brat received no funcing from the Tea Party. Cantor lost because he was disliked and the state has open primaries. Democrats turned out in large numbers to elect Brat who has little chance of winning in November. Big win for the Democrats.
Thanks “joe.”
Similarly, the effectiveness and fairness of an AnCap community will depend upon the mores and ethics of the inhabitants.
You’re confusing the State and the government.
State: “A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.”
Government: “The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state”, “The system by which a state or community is governed.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
That comment would make sense if Bob was quoting the declaration of independence, which he isn’t.
state |stāt|
noun
1 the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time : the state of the company’s finances | we’re worried about her state of mind.
• a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure : water in a liquid state.
• [in sing. ] ( a state) informal an agitated or anxious condition : don’t get into a state.
• [in sing. ] informal a dirty or untidy condition : look at the state of you—what a mess!
• Physics short for quantum state .
2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government : the state of Israel.
• an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic : the German state of Bavaria.
• ( the States) informal term for United States .
3 the civil government of a country : services provided by the state | [in combination ] state-owned companies | King Fahd appointed a council to advise him on affairs of state.
• ( the States) the legislative body in Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney.
Philippe:
You are confusing semantics and a substantive argument.
Consent of the governed? Given that there no government that has consent from EVERYONE who is taxed and considered a “citizen”, it follows that all governments are states according to your definitions.
Max Weber:
A term denotes “a ‘state’ if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force’ in the enforcement of its order.”
That’s all nice and good, but Weber’s conception/definition isn’t the only one out there. I like to think of “state” as similar in meaning to polity. Thus, a city-state is a city that stands as a separate polity just as a nation-states is a nation that stands on its own.
You say potato, I say potato
Heh heh, “govern responsibly”.
☑ Benghazi : no accountability, no oversight, “What difference does it make?”
☑ Gun-walking into the hands of Mexican gangs : refusal to give documents, no oversight.
☑ Prisoner exchange : President claiming powers he does not have, doing things he knows other branches of government would never approve.
☑ Arbitrary drone strikes : sudden death with no trial, no evidence, no appeal.
☑ IRS used as a political weapon : no oversight on that either, the House gets no answers as usual.
☑ Obamacare : just about everyone hates it, except Krugman’s audience who think it’s a great victory for their tribe against the other tribe.
☑ Government debt : never goes down.
☑ Detroit : gone from most productive city in the USA to a government-sponsored wasteland and basket case. Still got strong gun control laws so you know it’s safe to walk at night.
☑ Employment participation : been falling since 2000 and showing no signs of doing anything else.
☑ Fed QE : Tapering displaced by mysterious buyer in Belgium, because that totally makes sense.
☑ Social Security : Very unlikely to be viable in the long run, sitting on a pile of government bonds, wondering how to convert those into goods.
☑ Iraq War : aftermath is a huge boost for Islamist extermists, destabilised the entire region.
☑ Afghan War : the big winner was the opium harvest which gets bigger every year.
Did I miss much?
“What difference does it make” didn’t mean what difference does the attack on Benghazi make. It meant what difference does the motivation of the attackers make, as opposed to the more important matters of the fact that four Americans died, and the questions of how to bring those responsible to justice and how to prevent such attacks in future.
And she wasn’t even criticizing Republicans for focusing on the motivations of the attackers, she was criticizing them for focusing on incorrect information Susan Rice gave on Sunday talk shows (which turned out to actually be fairly accurate except for the part about protests), rather than focusing on the underlying issue of the Benghazi attack.
It makes a difference in understanding why it happened. It makes a difference in understanding what to do or not do in the future as a result. We have a moral and ethical responsibility to those that died to honestly learn from it and apply those learning’s. Unlikely at this point that will happen.
Criticizing official misinformation from the Administration is not only legitimate, it should be mandatory to maintain the public confidence. Then again, as to latter point of confidence, it’s academic at this stage.
“Criticizing official misinformation from the Administration is not only legitimate, it should be mandatory to maintain the public confidence.” Hillary was just criticizing the Republicans for disproportionately directing their attention to Susan Rice’s comments and paying too little attention to the attack itself. (And let me reiterate that Susan Rice’s comments were not as inaccurate as people were alleging; other than the mention of protests it was largely accurate.)
Keshav,
I’m not getting into the accuracy merits of Rice other than the only thing she was spot on about is our people died.
Go replay the Hillary response in full context and watch objectively. If you do you will reach a different conclusion. “paying too little attention to the attack itself” Seriously? The ‘Whys” are an instrumental part of that. The administration obfuscated the Whys. All Administrations do it and some are held more accountable than others for a variety of reasons. Stop the Red team Blue team nonsense.
The point in question is that the House is intended to have oversight powers. Answers should be available: what exactly happened, who ordered it, why they felt the need to lie about it, and who is ultimately responsible for this. If the House cannot get simple, direct and non-evasive answers to these questions then the Constitution is not being followed.
I’m 100 percent certain, Keshav, that you would be as forgiving if Condelezza Rice uttered those words.
If the motivation of the attackers made no difference, then why didn’t the just tell the truth to the American people right from day one? Why did the Obama/Hillary show feel the need to invent stories about a spontaneous protest triggered by some dumb movie? They knew all along there was no protest, it was a pre-planned attack.
I do think there was some spinning of what happened, and I think it was for political purposes, which is very unattractive. But there pretty clearly was a spontaneous protest based on the film, as well as an attack that was planned in some way. As I think the serious investigations have pretty much determined, the cause of what happened is somewhat murky, but the film was fairly clearly involved.
It meant what difference does the motivation of the attackers make, as opposed to the more important matters of the fact that four Americans died, and the questions of how to bring those responsible to justice and how to prevent such attacks in future.
The reason the motivation of the attackers was/is the bigger issue is because our government lied to us and blamed the attack on an American-made video rightly ridiculing the so-called “religion of peace”.
The goal of the lie was to try and shut Americans up about their criticisms of Islam.
The top 20 Benghazi lies
#4. “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” — President Obama
…
#6. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” — Hillary Clinton
…
#10. “Was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.” — Susan Rice
…
#16. “You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who is extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam. We had nothing to do with the video.” — President Obama
BOB BECKEL LOSES IT – Admits Benghazi Was a Cover Up Says “So What?”
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_SWDpkZZdU
Reality Check: Hillary Clinton´s Accepting “Responsibility” for Benghazi While Avoiding Blame
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjerBUxnRXU
Agreed.
This is why libertatians speak to, debate, target writing materials toward, and otherwise canoodle with “citizens”, as opposed to only writing to or calling statesmen.
Bob,
Better not let Gene Callahan see this post.
When Mises spoke of consent, was he really talking about elections as Bob suggest?
I think Mises was simply saying that if at any given time, enough people, consent to something other than self government(liberty), it will continue?
A dictator could be fine with people hating him as long as they’re too frightened to openly express that hatred.
They could be, but most aren’t. Just about every dictator ever has established a pretty ridiculous cult of personality around themselves. If you can get a certain amount of the population to believe it, and genuinely love you, it helps keep the dissidents in check.
La Boétie said it a long time ago.
Same thing, in cartoon format:
http://praxeology.net/true-power.jpg
Sure, the consent of the governed in the sense that the market (accumulation of individual actions) produces the state. Maybe this is a poor way of saying it, but it makes it seem like all societies are anarcho-capitalist, and the market chooses the state. Does this make any sense?