Consent

The recent "debates" on the health"care" laws has spurned a lot of vitriol and anger among those who believe it to be wonderful and those who feel it to be disastrous.  Now that the Supreme Court has given it the official stamp of approval as constitutional, we are hearing that the debate is over, just let it drop, guess we are stuck with it now.  Or perhaps if only we elect the right people they will repeal the law and replace it with...something else?  

What about those who feel, regardless of what the Priests of the State in their Temple of Law may declare to be doctrine of the One True Power, don't agree with their divine oracles?  We are forced to live in the system that has been erected for us.  I do not agree with their interpretation; I believe the law to be wrong and absolutely unconstitutional.  The Constitution that I respect and the one that the Federal Government has created are vastly different creatures.  I have never given my consent to the system that the badges and the guns are coercing me into adhering to.

This is one of the fundamental issues in political theory.  If the populace don't consent to the laws and government under which they find themselves, are they then bound to follow them?  It is mere happenstance of birth that I was located within the territorial bounds of the United States.  Yet that one fact seems to dictate that I am now a citizen of the nation, that I should owe my allegiance to the government that I happen to find myself under, and that I should bow to their dictates.  Outside of the signers of the Constitution, and perhaps those who voted at the state conventions to adopt it, who amongst us have given our explicit consent to have that form of government and be bound by it?  Theory has many statements as to the concept of "implicit consent", but can I opt out if at some point I find that my beliefs no longer coincide with the system I find my self under?  This was hotly debated under the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and Jefferson's arguments for nullification, with a number of the states at some point threatening secession until blood and guns settled that issue less than an century into our nation's history.  Once you are in, you aren't ever leaving.  At least on the state level; how about on the individual level?

Many people headed west to find their freedom, to set their own implementations of government that they were willing to give their consent to.  The Mormons took up a mass migration to the Rockies, well outside of federal jurisdiction.  The government still sent an army after them, invading foreign territory in the pursuit.  The acquisitions of the United States marched inexorably westward, until it has dominated from coast to coast.  As Ezra Taft Benson has stated, there are no more deserts to run to, no wildernesses in which to find escape anymore.

There are many who find even the discussion of secession, of withdrawal of consent, or even the questioning of whether it has ever been given, to be distasteful, "unpatriotic", or even traitorous.  (The first positions have to be answered before the last can even be discussed; you cannot betray or dishonor a trust that you have never held.)  Some of the most rabid acrimony comes from those within the Church.  How dare one even consider such a concept; surely it is an affront to God!

Have we as a people become so blinded by fervor to a particular idea that we cannot even exam history?  Do we actually refuse to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" because there might be concepts that conflict with our cherished feelings?  The entire story of history is a ceaseless tide of secession and the debate over the consent of the governed.

Israel willingly moved into Egypt to partake of the blessings of that civilization.  Within a few generations they found themselves marginalized, and then enslaved.  Given the first opportunity they withdrew from that society and struck off to form their own under which they were willing to live.  

Lehi took his family and fled into the wilderness rather than submit himself to the dictates of a foreign government.  Once in the new world, Nephi and his followers decided to separate themselves from his older brothers instead allowing them to rule.  The people of Limhi, Alma, the Ammonites, the kingmen, and many other examples of dissent and secession are chronicled in the Book of Mormon.  

At the dawn of mortal time we find the fundamental issues of consent and dissent cropping up.  Cain did not believe that he should follow the system of government that was in place and was allowed to freely leave and establish himself and his posterity elsewhere.

Even before the creation of the world we see Lucifer proclaim that he could not, he would not, consent to having Father rule over him.  The interpretation of the heavenly constitution was not to his liking and he withdrew.  God proclaimed the principle of agency, and allowed all to freely act.  Due to subsequent actions, Satan and his angels were expelled.  Yet the precedent was set from the very beginning; no individual would be compelled to submit to a form of government that consent was not given.

In the histories we see the great yearly rites, the celebrations of the renewal of the social covenants.  The ruler comes before the people and they proclaim his rule and their acquiescence to the order.  All were to appear and have their names entered in the books of life.  Those who failed to do so were stricken from the records and were out-laws; they were outside of the law, they could not be governed under it, they could not benefit from it.  

Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem to be taxed and account for under the law;  Benjamin and Mosiah have the people gather to enter into and renew the covenant; the people throw their garments at the feet of Moroni in proclamation of themselves adherents to his great Title.  

Each week we meet in our sacrament meetings to renew our covenants, to proclaim that we continue to consent to having God as our ruler, Christ as our Lord.  We enter in to the temple covenants on our "own free will and choice."  We are employed, join organizations, clubs, friendships and relationships when we choose, and as readily we leave and disband our fellowships.  We don't find that right controversial, indeed, we would protest mightily if hindered or dictated as to our participation in those associations.  The difference under discussion seems to be a matter of degree, not of kind.

Is it so atrocious that one would refuse to be confined to an externally imposed implicit consent to a form of government that utterly violates ones principles and beliefs?  Must we force conformity upon the conscience of individuals?  If so we have become despotic and diabolic indeed.

The Constitution to which I pledge my allegiance is not one that can be amended at will by five unelected black robed despots unaccountable to the people.  It is not one that any individual or organization can declare a mandate under.  It is one that requires the explicit consent of all those who will live under it.  It allows the free association, or disassociation, of individuals however they may.  It is a proscription of liberty, a declaration of natural law.  It is one of strict justice, not the enactment of capricious whim.  I must utterly reject and oppose those philosophies of men being imposed upon us.

The Constitution which I love was inspired by God, designed for His express purposes, the one which unlocks the divine, and radiates forth the glorious light of true agency to pierce the mists of darkness clouding this hazy and fallen world.  

Now we have a blank piece of paper, aged and crumbling, being franticly scribbled upon by a gang of thieves writ large.

I do not consent.