That's right, that is essentially how it works and there are massive advertising campaigns to encourage people to not consider that their consent is optional, though that's not all bad
by consent is optional, do you mean something other than voting?
Just think about it. If people accept the claim that they are subject to pay fines for speeding having not harmed anyone, then they will pay. The power lies with the people. Always has
how do you define "accept the claim?" If i put a gun to your head and demand you sign your house over to me, have you "accepted the claim" that I now own your house?
Search for maxims of law, they will help lay the groundwork for you. In your example, if I sign a paper with a gun to my head then I can claim duress. Or I can fight you in selfdefense
if an individual sees speeding fines as unjust they either accept the claim begrudgingly, lose in court & pay the claim, or go to jail (sounds like duress).
Are you sure about that? Ever tried to argue one at court?
Consent should not the default. the onus is then on individuals in the population (who could be more productively using their time) to refute these things later.
That is precisely the problem with top-down legislation in civil law versus bottom-up in common law. Neither is perfect by itself, both have issues. "Silence is acquiescence" regardles
You’ve consented to $800 in corporate welfare each year. To get that money back you’ll go to court to repeal each one of them?
https://bch.gg/7y
Will you also sit in court for these other victimless crimes, each one imposing a cost on society?
Do you think sitting in court is the only way to withdraw consent?
I started this by asking you if you meant voting was a way of withdrawing consent. all you've mentioned is court
What is the cost benefit analysis of “silence is acquiescence?” You feel it’s beneficial to sit in court for a day every time you get a ticket. Ok fine.
what is the issue with "bottom-up common law?"
you can see more things like lynchings and killings of outsiders being treated as "just", because the jury of peers in a small community may side with the insider in spite of facts
Great, you have success with speeding tickets. Had success with being allowed to take psychoactive drugs? crossing a boarder with >$10k cash? Running a dark net market?
Was using speeding ticket as a stand in for the numerous (growing more so every day) victimless crimes dreamt up by a minority of lawmakers.
https://bch.gg/7x
You can go to court 1000 times and get your speeding ticket removed, and they’ll give you another one. Law hasn’t changed & you haven’t made progress.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, regardless of what may or may not be empirically.
you have evidence to support the idea we're making progress against useless laws we've "consented" to?
Your question pre-supposes that you believe you are subject to these laws you against which you believe progress needs to be made, yet you put "consented" in quotes. Well, which is it?
u get a ticket, go to court, get it removed. You’re back where you started. u can get another ticket for the same thing. You haven’t made progress against a law you dont consent to
Why do you make those assumptions if you haven't tested it out?
why don't you provide data if you have tested it out?
are you not back where you started?
Being subject to a law and consenting to it are different. I can be subject to sex against my will and not consent to it, as in the case of rape.
Rape is not a law
so you're saying being subject to a law is the same thing as consenting to it
Depends which kind of law we're talking about. A natural law like mortality? We're subject whether we consent or not, though that hasn't stopped countless ppl from trying to overcome
have we been talking about natural laws? do you have a point you'd like to make or do you just want to keep dancing around critiquing details of my posts while ignoring the substance?
If that is what you think I've been doing, then no.
what have you been doing?
It's called conversation. Don't take it personally.
r/iamverysmart
so you have made progress?
haven’t needed to. Still a bad tradeoff. sit in court all day waiting to make some case every time you get a ticket.
Which is the same argument many kids make to themselves when they hand over their lunch money to the bully day after day
kids also think 2+2=4. does that the fact that children think it make it less true?
but there is no way for an individual to withdraw consent.
If people accept the claim that a small group can lock them up for tweeting certain words, then some will be locked up and others will fear to speak their minds. That is consent, right
