What do you think of tacit consent?

Dirk · Jan 24, 2010

deanhills said:
Dirk. I was being sarcastic

I presumed so, but just wanted to be sure nobody could ever consider me a supporter of tyranny.

logically I cannot see how you could have a democracy with a population of 350million people without representation. Dictatorship equals no representation.

Well, it doesn't mean that because you or i can't think of one, there isn't one. But personally, i don't agree with natinal divides - they're stupid, illogical, and cause conflict. A localist system is far more consistent with democracy - and more practical.

deanhills · Jan 25, 2010

Dirk said:
A localist system is far more consistent with democracy - and more practical.

Right, but then perhaps one would have to get rid of most of the people first. A localist system would probably work better in small communities?

Dirk · Jan 25, 2010

deanhills said:
Right, but then perhaps one would have to get rid of most of the people first. A localist system would probably work better in small communities?

We don't need to get rid of anyone. Just let communities come together and sort things out themselves, for themselves.

deanhills · Jan 26, 2010

Dirk said:
We don't need to get rid of anyone. Just let communities come together and sort things out themselves, for themselves.

Wouldn't that equate with the Bible's proverbial tower of Babel voices then, where everyone is speaking at the same time and no one is heard in the end?:help:

Dirk · Jan 26, 2010

deanhills said:
Wouldn't that equate with the Bible's proverbial tower of Babel voices then, where everyone is speaking at the same time and no one is heard in the end?:help:

No, it equates to the people affected deciding their own destinies and federating freely as necessary or desired with their community.

deanhills · Jan 29, 2010

Dirk said:
No, it equates to the people affected deciding their own destinies and federating freely as necessary or desired with their community.

Sounds like anarchy to me.

Dirk · Jan 29, 2010

deanhills said:
Sounds like anarchy to me.

It is.

Remember, though, anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It comes from the Greek, anarchia. The literal translation is "without rulers". In terms of practical linguistics, it has a variety of meanings, none of which is chaos.

deanhills · Jan 31, 2010

Dirk said:
It is.

Remember, though, anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It comes from the Greek, anarchia. The literal translation is "without rulers". In terms of practical linguistics, it has a variety of meanings, none of which is chaos.

I got it, looks as though someone has started a discussion on what anarchy is, and when I did some research I realized that it is not synonymous with lawlessness. Different kind of Government without government.

Daktoria · Feb 6, 2010

myp said:
Consent of the governed is an important aspect of many theories of political philosophy. One of the questions that is often brought up is whether tacit consent (not refusing consent, but not necessarily consenting) should qualify as consent. If it doesn't, is it right for the state to have authority over people who don't explicitly consent, but also don't refuse consent (which is not necessarily because they don't want to refuse, but could also be because they don't feel they have an efficient manner in which to refuse or that it would mean nothing if the did)?

Will is more important than understanding when it comes to justice, and the best forms of judgment take place when the judged don't even know they're being judged. That way, their honest intentions get perceived.

Understanding's nice and it's preferable when searching for opportunities to collaborate with others of similar inclinations, but understanding's not always a luxury that can be afforded, justice being a practice that isn't meant to accommodate luxuries.

What do you think of tacit consent?

Similar threads