Does a government have the authority to become a government, impose laws on everyone else, etc.?

[Delta4Embassy]

Until a government is founded, laws made and enforced etc. you have a group of people working together for the common good. But for all intents and purposes (and the sake of illustraiton) no meaningful laws of rules. People do whatever doesn't get themselves killed by the others. So there's some basic morals and commonsense things, but nothing written in stone as it were.

So who gives those who come together to form a new government the authority to do that? Did our Founders have formal or proper authority to tell the King to take a flying leap? No. So if they had no authority how can they demand those who come under their new government respect and obey the new government?

We have laws and a US government now. But if it was founded criminally, isn't it consistent that laws are optional? What if you wanted to follow Britain's laws instead? What if you wanted no laws? Practical problems of anarchy aside, in principal only, isn't the US government invalid as its' founding was unauthorized to begin with?

 

[PratchettFan]

Until a government is founded, laws made and enforced etc. you have a group of people working together for the common good. But for all intents and purposes (and the sake of illustraiton) no meaningful laws of rules. People do whatever doesn't get themselves killed by the others. So there's some basic morals and commonsense things, but nothing written in stone as it were.

So who gives those who come together to form a new government the authority to do that? Did our Founders have formal or proper authority to tell the King to take a flying leap? No. So if they had no authority how can they demand those who come under their new government respect and obey the new government?

We have laws and a US government now. But if it was founded criminally, isn't it consistent that laws are optional? What if you wanted to follow Britain's laws instead? What if you wanted no laws? Practical problems of anarchy aside, in principal only, isn't the US government invalid as its' founding was unauthorized to begin with?

First off, your first statement is flat wrong. Before you have a government, you either have another government you just threw off or you have an interim government to tide over until you have a new government. There is no phase where it is just a group of people working together for the common good.

All government derives its authority from the willingness of the governed to be governed.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Until a government is founded, laws made and enforced etc. you have a group of people working together for the common good. But for all intents and purposes (and the sake of illustraiton) no meaningful laws of rules. People do whatever doesn't get themselves killed by the others. So there's some basic morals and commonsense things, but nothing written in stone as it were.

So who gives those who come together to form a new government the authority to do that? Did our Founders have formal or proper authority to tell the King to take a flying leap? No. So if they had no authority how can they demand those who come under their new government respect and obey the new government?

We have laws and a US government now. But if it was founded criminally, isn't it consistent that laws are optional? What if you wanted to follow Britain's laws instead? What if you wanted no laws? Practical problems of anarchy aside, in principal only, isn't the US government invalid as its' founding was unauthorized to begin with?

First off, your first statement is flat wrong. Before you have a government, you either have another government you just threw off or you have an interim government to tide over until you have a new government. There is no phase where it is just a group of people working together for the common good.

All government derives its authority from the willingness of the governed to be governed.

If you asked Pew Research to put a poll out in the country asking if Americans thought every law they're bound to follow (or else) was laws they agreed with, what do you think the results would be?

Tax Code, business laws, enviromental laws, think the GOP is in agreement with those? Think the Democrats are in agreement with immigration laws and the like?

We're not in agreement with being governed, we're simply forced to literally at gunpoint.

 

[PratchettFan]

Until a government is founded, laws made and enforced etc. you have a group of people working together for the common good. But for all intents and purposes (and the sake of illustraiton) no meaningful laws of rules. People do whatever doesn't get themselves killed by the others. So there's some basic morals and commonsense things, but nothing written in stone as it were.

So who gives those who come together to form a new government the authority to do that? Did our Founders have formal or proper authority to tell the King to take a flying leap? No. So if they had no authority how can they demand those who come under their new government respect and obey the new government?

We have laws and a US government now. But if it was founded criminally, isn't it consistent that laws are optional? What if you wanted to follow Britain's laws instead? What if you wanted no laws? Practical problems of anarchy aside, in principal only, isn't the US government invalid as its' founding was unauthorized to begin with?

First off, your first statement is flat wrong. Before you have a government, you either have another government you just threw off or you have an interim government to tide over until you have a new government. There is no phase where it is just a group of people working together for the common good.

All government derives its authority from the willingness of the governed to be governed.

If you asked Pew Research to put a poll out in the country asking if Americans thought every law they're bound to follow (or else) was laws they agreed with, what do you think the results would be?

Tax Code, business laws, enviromental laws, think the GOP is in agreement with those? Think the Democrats are in agreement with immigration laws and the like?

We're not in agreement with being governed, we're simply forced to literally at gunpoint.

You don't have to agree with every law to be willing to be governed. And if you think gunpoint will do it when a society is no longer willing, put that question to Louis XVI or Czar Nicolas.

As to our being governed at gunpoint, I suggest you go to any border check point. You will notice there are no machine guns pointing inward. If you want out, all you have to do is use the gate. Regardless of feelings about any given law, people who remain here do so entirely voluntarily.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The government exists due to the consent of the governed. PERIOD.