What do you think of tacit consent?

myp · Dec 5, 2009

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)?

Dirk · Dec 6, 2009

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)?

It shouldn't.

Delta · Dec 6, 2009

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)?

If I'm understanding this correctly, then basically what you're saying is that silence is considered consent. I'd have to agree with that. Inaction is pretty much acceptance as far as I see it.

myp · Dec 6, 2009

Delta said:
If I'm understanding this correctly, then basically what you're saying is that silence is considered consent. I'd have to agree with that. Inaction is pretty much acceptance as far as I see it.

To an extent it is silence, but those who do not believe in tacit consent would also say that there are people who don't consent, but don't have an effective way to refuse consent. For example, an anarchist in today's world would obviously oppose all government, yet there is no land on Earth where he/she could go where there is no government so he may stay put under one government even though he doesn't actually consent to it.

deanhills · Dec 9, 2009

I am almost certain that the bail out package that got voted in in January, got voted in with a great majority of tacit consent. Apart from the fact that no one was really given a chance to make a proper study of it when the Bill was supposed to have been read.

Tacit consent can also sometimes be synonymous with apathy, when people who are pretty cynical about the party system in the United States feel that neither could make a difference to the system, the parties are different sides of the exact same coin.

WanderingStar · Jan 15, 2010

I think that in the majority of cases people choose to remain silenced. If you believe in something and do not want to give your consent you'll find a way. Often times people do stay silent- for instance, with the people who run a certain website in which they promote the hatred of gay people and where they picket soldiers funerals- if you are against them you can speak out about it or if they are picketing in your town you can go there and try to make your own message heard- if you stay silent you're as good as being on their side.

Dirk · Jan 17, 2010

deanhills said:
Tacit consent can also sometimes be synonymous with apathy, when people who are pretty cynical about the party system in the United States feel that neither could make a difference to the system, the parties are different sides of the exact same coin.

I am apathetic. I don't vote. I did in the past, i'd even vote for a particular party, faithfully. Since i got British citizenship a while ago, i've voted for a certain party, too. I don't any longer, i see it as pointless. Frankly, my dreams are too big for their ballot boxes.

I also see voting as giving the system legitimancy.

DodgeFB · Jan 17, 2010

Dirk said:
I am apathetic. I don't vote. I did in the past, i'd even vote for a particular party, faithfully. Since i got British citizenship a while ago, i've voted for a certain party, too. I don't any longer, i see it as pointless. Frankly, my dreams are too big for their ballot boxes.

I also see voting as giving the system legitimancy.

See I vote because I feel like that gives me a right to complain. If I did not vote I would try not to criticize who the others elected. Just too different ways of looking at things.

Dirk · Jan 17, 2010

DodgeFB said:
See I vote because I feel like that gives me a right to complain. If I did not vote I would try not to criticize who the others elected. Just too different ways of looking at things.

The thing is, in 1997, i voted for the party that won. They did some good things that really helped people, which is nice. It wasn't by any means enough, and they did a lot of bad things. I very much disagreed with the Iraq war, among other things. Nowadays, i'd disagree with the way things were done, but i'm still grateful they were. The problem was that when i criticised the Government, some of my friends and i were uncomfortable because we'd voted for it. I claimed i misjudgement, of course. But what other party would have done better? None of them. I sort of got a bit disillusioned with the whole system. And thus began my radicalisation.

DodgeFB · Jan 17, 2010

Dirk said:
The thing is, in 1997, i voted for the party that won. They did some good things that really helped people, which is nice. It wasn't by any means enough, and they did a lot of bad things. I very much disagreed with the Iraq war, among other things. Nowadays, i'd disagree with the way things were done, but i'm still grateful they were. The problem was that when i criticised the Government, some of my friends and i were uncomfortable because we'd voted for it. I claimed i misjudgement, of course. But what other party would have done better? None of them. I sort of got a bit disillusioned with the whole system. And thus began my radicalisation.

Oh! So that was the problem!

Dirk · Jan 17, 2010

DodgeFB said:
Oh! So that was the problem!

That and my fiscal situation probably formed the basis, yes.

deanhills · Jan 18, 2010

So if we take the last Presidential election, do you think Obama was elected by majority tacit or expressed consent? Would probably take some math to work it out? Percentage of those that did not vote, plus those who voted against Bush?

Dirk · Jan 19, 2010

deanhills said:
So if we take the last Presidential election, do you think Obama was elected by majority tacit or expressed consent? Would probably take some math to work it out? Percentage of those that did not vote, plus those who voted against Bush?

I highly doubt he was voted in as a majority. And most definitely not supported by a majority. If you add the number that voted for Obama's competitors, and those that didn't vote, that's already the vast majority. As for my second point, you'd have to add those that voted for Obama because there was no viable alternative that better expressed their sentiments.

deanhills · Jan 20, 2010

Dirk said:
I highly doubt he was voted in as a majority. And most definitely not supported by a majority. If you add the number that voted for Obama's competitors, and those that didn't vote, that's already the vast majority. As for my second point, you'd have to add those that voted for Obama because there was no viable alternative that better expressed their sentiments.

I guess "the truth" of democracy has a million faces?

Dirk · Jan 20, 2010

deanhills said:
I guess "the truth" of democracy has a million faces?

Democracy is almost impossible to attain with a system of representatives.

deanhills · Jan 22, 2010

Dirk said:
Democracy is almost impossible to attain with a system of representatives.

OK, so how would democracy then be possible in your opinion? A dictatorship? :unsure:

Dirk · Jan 22, 2010

deanhills said:
OK, so how would democracy then be possible in your opinion? A dictatorship? :unsure:

What has a dictatorship to do with democracy? Surely that would be entirely averse to the entire principle of democracy! That said, there are so-called "elective dictatorships"... but then, it's about representatives again.

What exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure i'm not getting the right idea - hidden meaning? Would you mind explaining your point?

Presuming it to be possible (which i'm unsure about), then it would need to be the most direct and participatory method practicable. I don't know what that is - i mean, i have my own ideas, but i wouldn't want to sketch utopia - i don't believe in a utopia, far too idealistic.

deanhills · Jan 23, 2010

@ Dirk. You previously maintained that democracy is not possible with a system of representatives:

Dirk said:
Democracy is almost impossible to attain with a system of representatives.

If Democracy is not possible with a system of representatives, in the way that you put it above, then the alternative by way of your explanation would then be a dictatorship? Or what would your alternative be? How would democracy be possible without representation?

Dirk · Jan 23, 2010

deanhills said:
@ Dirk. You previously maintained that democracy is not possible with a system of representatives:

If Democracy is not possible with a system of representatives, in the way that you put it above, then the alternative by way of your explanation would then be a dictatorship? Or what would your alternative be? How would democracy be possible without representation?

A dictatorship is certainly not democratic. When you elect representatives, you choose to whom you surrender your political power. The aim is to have your views represented, am i right? Then why not adopt some sort of system where you represent your views personally, as much as possible? Representatives are a hindrance to this. A dictator or dictating party represents the views of the people less than the current system does.

My personal alternative preference would be some sort of participatory direct democracy - localist if we want to be practical - or consensus decision-making. Mind you, it's not my views, individually that really matter.

deanhills · Jan 23, 2010

Dirk said:
A dictatorship is certainly not democratic. When you elect representatives, you choose to whom you surrender your political power. The aim is to have your views represented, am i right? Then why not adopt some sort of system where you represent your views personally, as much as possible? Representatives are a hindrance to this. A dictator or dictating party represents the views of the people less than the current system does.

My personal alternative preference would be some sort of participatory direct democracy - localist if we want to be practical - or consensus decision-making. Mind you, it's not my views, individually that really matter.

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

What do you think of tacit consent?

Similar threads