From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 16:29:01 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: "consent of the governed"
In-Reply-To: <199602212023.MAA22936@netcom13.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960221153531.2872F-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


You're taking this phrase out of context. What the Declaration said was:

1. There are certain universal human rights, like life, liberty, and 
   property^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the pursuit of happiness.
2. To protect these rights, people form governments. Only the baddest kid 
   on the block can protect her own rights, and only if she never sleeps. 
   The rest of us need the police.
3. Ergo, government derives its just powers from the consent of the 
   governed. I read this more as a conclusion than as a premise.

This is all that Hobbes, Locke, and Montequieu said. Rousseau was 
different, but he was a kook.

This is quite different from saying, "The government has the right to do
what the majority says it can do." Government doesn't have any rights,
only delegated powers.

A utilitarian like Mill or a positivist like Comte or a trader like Smith,
or I, would say that government power shouldn't be restricted to the
protection of basic rights. Public goods should also be pooled to do
things that people can't or won't do by themselves -- garbage collection,
health and disability insurance, protecting "the commons" with
environmental regulations, etc. But these utilitarian-type interests 
don't really fall into the power/rights game.

-rich