*******************************************************************
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
*******************************************************************

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS CLASSIFIED - TOXIC!!!  IT IS EXTREMELY
HAZARDOUS TO THOSE OF WEAK WILL AND HAS BEEN KNOWN TO FORCE THE
READER TO INCORPORATE THE ENCLOSED BELIEFS INTO THEIR OWN.  PLEASE
USE EXTREME CAUTION BEFORE ATTEMTED TO READ....

MATERIAL SHOULD NOT BE READ BY PERSONS UNDER 21, UNLESS ACCOMPANIED
BY A GOVERNMENT APPROVED PSYCHOLOGIST.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------


                        THE ISSUE IS CONSENT!

                                  Robert Metz

One of the greatest philosophical questions facing individual citizens
in any free society is: Where do we draw the line on individual
freedom?

At what point in our many individual relationships should our freedom
to act be limited, and how can we morally, ethically, and legally
justify placing such limits on individual freedom?

More importantly, before we can even begin to attempt answering such
questions, how can we learn to recognize the principle on which
individual freedom must be based? How can we know when it is proper to
restrict someone's freedom, or understand when we must not restrict
another's freedom?

The answer to these questions is not as self-evident as many of us
would like to believe, but of one thing we may be certain: when an
issue involves any individual's freedom of choice, the issue is
consent.

Consent.

There is possibly no other single concept more appropriate to use as
the defining point at what should be (or should not be) legally or
morally acceptable behaviour in a free society. Consent is the
underlying social concept behind a single principle that can be relied
upon both to protect individual freedom, and to limit the individual's
actions within society: the principle of individual rights.

Most dictionaries define "consent" in two basic ways: (1) to be of one
mind, to agree; concord, (2) voluntary allowance or acceptance of
something done or proposed; permission, approval.

For all practical purposes, it is the second definition that is most
appropriate, since, within its context, the first definition is
already included. Using this second definition, it soon becomes
apparent that there is more involved to the issue of consent
than first meets the eye.

For example, consent does not necessarily imply agreement. In a free
society, we consent to many things that we may not agree with, or even
necessarily like.

People who accept circumstances that may be unpleasant or
uncomfortable in their personal relationships can be said to be
consenting to their circumstances by refusing to act or change their
circumstances. Yet, others might argue that certain circumstances may
be "beyond one's control", and thus not comprise an act of consent.

Regrettably, the term "consensual act" almost has a derogatory meaning
attached to it; it is so often associated with acts of
sex, that many people forget that consent should be the working
principle behind all human relationships.

Indeed, it is remarkable how important the concept of consent is when
it comes to sex, one of the most personal aspects of
human relationships. The determination of its presence or absence may
well be the deciding factor in finding someone guilty of
rape, assault, forced confinement, etc. It is clear, that in such
cases, the absence of consent involves the initiation of the use of
force, an act that should be banned by all civilized societies.

Yet, for some reason never fully explained by those in authority, the
issue of consent is virtually ignored (or consciously left
undefined) in determining the individual's freedom of action ---
whenever it pertains to politics.

Sad to say, when it comes to politics, the principle of consent has
been abandoned in favour of another principle that is increasingly
confused with it: the principle of consensus. Unlike consent, which is
based entirely on voluntary interaction, consensus holds that any
"majority" may do whatever it likes to any "minority", and this
philosophy demands that a society be based on forced relationships.

Regrettably, consensus (not consent) has become the predominant
political philosophy in play today, and its effects on our
deteriorating freedoms cannot be understated.

Because tenants happen to outnumber landlords, we have rent controls
--- despite the fact that rent controls completely violate the direct
consensual relationship between landlords and tenants.

Because the lobby groups and special interests against freedom of
choice in Sunday shopping happen to be better organized than the
millions of unorganized individuals who actually shop on Sundays, we
have Sunday closing laws --- despite the fact that those who shop on
Sundays are indicating their consent by doing so.

Because a "majority" of employees may vote to ratify a union to
represent all employees in their place of employment, the
"minority" can be legally forced to pay dues to an association they
have not consented to support --- or even agree with.

Public consensus is not a principle or ideology; it is, in fact, an
anti-ideology.

Consensus is not a principle on which human relationships can be
based, but a rationalization of a means to arrive at some given
conclusion. By dealing with the rights of individuals on the basis of
consensus, individuals are turned into numbers, with the greater
number on any given issue being called the "majority" and given the
legal right to impose its decisions on the minority --- without the
minority's consent.

Politically and socially, consensus results in a compromise between
individual freedom and government controls, and thus leads to a
society run by pressure groups, lobby groups and special interests.

Under the principle of consensus, legal principles of justice begin to
erode to the point where justice no longer depends upon objective
evidence or individual rights, but upon the opinion of some given
majority.

Under the principle of consensus, governments eventually cease
representing rights and begin to represent interests.

That's why, more than ever before, it has become necessary to refocus
our attention back on the only social concept consistent with living
in a free society: the principle of consent.

It is consent that allows individuals the freedom of choice that so
many take for granted. It is consent that allows us to choose our
marriage partners, our business relationships, our employees, our
employers, our customers, etc.

The anatomy of consent is voluntarism. When people consent --- even to
disagree! --- force becomes an unnecessary and non-existent element in
human relationships.

=====================================================================

--- PPoint 1.90
 * Origin: Mike's point system (1:340/47.1)