"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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ U.S. Declaration of Independence
The preamble of the document that has had the most influence in the Western world lays out a fundamental truth: Without consent, a government is not legitimate.
Consent of the governed is a concept rooted in the principles of individual liberty. It is an Enlightenment-era rejection of monarchism and the previous doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings.” Consent is the foundation for legitimate moral authority of any government.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The derivation of just powers is predicated on the willingly-granted authority from the very people who will be living under that government’s rule of law. A government cannot assume its own authority, nor can it assume powers not granted to it.
The principles of liberty and legitimate government outlined here follow the Enlightenment philosophies of natural rights and the emerging economic theories of that era. Consent – or voluntary interactions in general – was increasingly acknowledged and defended as a natural behavior and principle in human relationships. Force was rejected in favor of willing cooperation based on personal economy. These concepts extended into the government realm of authority and legality.
While the Enlightenment was a great step forward, playing a pivotal role in recognizing individual freedom and paving the way for economic prosperity, some of the expressed ideas and theories fell short of reaching their logical conclusions. Consent of the governed is one of those concepts.
In 1762, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s On the Social Contract was published. His book attempted to make the case for a political community, or will, based on the sovereignty of the people. This political body, he argued, is the only body with the legitimate power to create its own government.
Rousseau’s foundational argument rests on consent of the people. But prior to that, the establishment of “the people” itself relies on consent from individuals, which he correctly determines cannot be assumed as “unanimous” by a mere democratic vote.
"Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation on the minority to submit to the choice of the majority? How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least." ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
If legitimate authority is derived from the consent of the governed, and if there are individuals explicitly not granting consent who find themselves under the thumb of government authority, can that authority be considered legitimate? This question cannot be reasonably answered without first accepting what Rousseau identified as a “law” that has not been “established by convention.”
There is no government today that presumes to have any unanimous support or explicit agreement to its current authority, nor has there been any unanimous support in the past for those people who created today’s governments.
The lack of actual consent by individuals under their authority obviously puts all current governments firmly on the side of being illegitimate. This is the logical conclusion we would reach based on the arguments and writings from some of history’s most brilliant minds on the subject.
We cannot identify and accept the natural liberties of man, proclaim that we are free and our actions voluntary, and then subject unwilling participants to government authority.
"A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government." ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
There is no rational basis for either denying one’s right to consent or violating their explicit non-consent. Stripping away the choice of an individual to decide if they want to be part of a group or organization, whether it’s called a “government” or not, is a violation of their freedom of association. This right is recognized by governments around the world despite the hypocrisy of rejecting it when it comes to individuals under their assumed but illegitimate jurisdiction.
Once we understand that a non-consensual “agreement” exists between a government and any or all non-consenting individuals under its assumed authority, we can accurately state that such a government is not protecting our rights; that the very purpose of that government – to protect our liberties – has been voided by its violation of them; that the government in question has not justly derived its powers.
The prescribed remedy, as so eloquently pointed out by the Declaration of Independence – the concepts of which are revered by liberty advocates around the world – is to “alter or abolish” the violative government. These two choices are explicitly referred to as a “Right of the People.”
Since merely altering the government still assumes that it has any legitimate authority justly derived through consent that has certainly not been granted, the only logical course of action would be to abolish it.
This is our right and it falls completely within the freedoms already identified and accepted by governments, scholars, philosophers, and human rights organizations around the world. There are few things that come close to rising to the same level as this universal truth:
Where there is no consent, there is no legitimacy.
