As I drove to work this morning, I was pondering a previous post by Salt Prime regarding consent of the governed. I pondered a series of questions which I post below hoping to generate discussion over them, as I do not have clear answers.
Is consenting to a form of government also consenting to the laws generated by the government in so far as they are constitutional?
Is not consenting the same as not agreeing? For example, while you may not agree with a decision to declare war, if the decision is made through constitutional means, are you consenting because you consented to the constitutional provisions for how war would be declared even though you disagree with the decision?
What are your options if you disagree with a government action taken through constitutional means?
What are your options to actualize your dissent to unconstitutional law?
When should we comply with laws to which we dissent and when should we actively rebel? Is it worth feeling right and morally justified while languishing in prison?
Is choosing to comply with laws to which you do not consent the very definition of slavery?
As it is unlikely man will ever create and abide by a perfect government to which all consent 100%, is slavery simply a matter of degree?
Does creation of government neccessitate giving up a certain level of individual freedom to a collective body?
In the Church we sustain authorities and the decisions of authorities even though we do not always agree. Should we treat government authorities the same way in so far as they do not usurp their constitutional powers?
While I don't have clear answers to these questions, the following principles seem clearly designed to help preserve freedom amongst differing opinions about government.
1. Written constitutions limiting government powers
2. Power as close to the governed as possible
3. Elected officials
4. Power of impeachment
5. Right of secession
-T.
No comments:
Post a Comment