One of the biggest hurdles I've encountered when speaking to others about the abuses of the state is the idea of "tacit consent". I've searched far and wide and have only found a couple of good essays on the topic. It seems that there's not enough out there on "tacit consent" from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. I say "seems" because it could just be searcher-error. These are the two strongest one's I've found:
Bowen Greenwood - http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tacit-consent-a-quiet-tyranny/print/ Mike Rozeff - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff26.html
Roderick Long is quoted on Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Tacit_consent
If anyone has anything else on the topic they can share, I'd appreciate it. Feel free to give me your own thoughts on the concept as well.
Skyler.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Those are all probably good sources. Especially Roderick Long. Consider though, that regardless of whatever we conclude about tacit consent, it can still be withdrawn explicitly. No one would claim that a relationship was voluntary if someone said "I want out. Now. No matter what.". From the fact that I can't hand in a cease and desist form to the government, I'd say all state relationships are involuntary. Statist typically reply that we can leave if we don't like it, but that's no answer. If I starting looting your house and said "if you don't like it, you can leave", I would be thrown in jail for attacking you. Why does this logic change when the state is involved? Its a little fuzzy for some people because we've all been born into a state. But consider a farmer in 1776 minding his own business. The tax collector comes to him, and threatens him if he doesn't pay up and join this organization. Furthermore, the tax collector says he'll be back every season, and that him, his children, and his children's children are all now obligated to this organization. An analogy to being born into a state is to imagine that you are in a free society. Then aliens beam you up to their planet and say "you have to follow our rules". They are clearly attacking you. This is all obfuscated by the fact that we are slowly introduced to the state as children. Police officers are helpers. Teachers are like parents. The military protects you from dangerous people. The political philosophy is skipped; prudential and ethical recomendations muted. What five year old would challenge an adult to a debate about the merits of government? What adult wants to lose social status by fighting a losing battle? Statists are a bunch of bullies.
Long's argument is correct: the argument from tacit consent/residence is simply circular reasoning.
If you want to get into political obligation, I recommend starting with Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? by Christopher Wellman and John Simmons and Chapter 1 of Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution. After that read Moral Principles and Political Obligations by John Simmons.
For a shorter treatment, check out Charles Johnson's "Can anybody ever consent to the State?" and Geoffrey Plauché's "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy".
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
A pathetic attempt to warp a simple, valid concept into invalid gibberish to make something seem good rather than bad. The end.
^Plauche is a combination of Long and prudency. It owns.
I recommend No Treason by Lysander Spooner.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
I'm a contractarian... but there is no tacit consent. You have to consult a person for his consent. I was at a seminar with Jan Narveson speaking about the different brands of libertarianism and the one he said he favoured was the social contract based on explicit consent. He doesn't seem well known around here.
Why do you assume tacit consent to property?
Robert Higgs latest is on this very topic: http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6334
@OP: The best counter-argument, IMO, is to use analogy. Al Capone also relied on the "tacit consent" of those who lived in his neighborhoods. Sure, he had to bop a few people on the head once in a while to maintain law and order but, by and large, people paid their protection fees because they knew they had a duty to pay them and, thereby, they evidenced their tacit consent to Capone's authority and protection fees.
The distinction between government and Capone is that government does in broad daylight what Capone only dared to do under cover of darkness in a back alley. Because government has not only instilled fear in the masses but has instilled love of itself among the respectable, it has the cover of moral legitimacy under which to exercise its awesome arsenal of fear.
The real problem here is a moral and legal problem, not a technical problem, which is why you won't read much from economists - even Austrian economists - on the subject. If you sit down at a restaurant to eat, social convention clearly dictates that your actions constitute a tacit agreement to pay when the meal is finished. To delay payment any further constitutes a tort. But the socialization of law has resulted in the multiplication of virtual crimes, the most ridiculous and absurd of which is "tax evasion". Because no tort must occur in order for the public prosecutor to bring suit, crimes such as "tax evasion" or "possession of a controlled substance" exist. Who is harmed if you reside in your house and do not pay taxes? No one had rightful title to any of your property before April 15th so how did it happen that they magically came to have rightful title to your property after April 15th through no action on your part, whether understood through social norm or otherwise? There is no social norm that dictates you have come to agree to pay a certain amount of money to the government or anyone else solely by residing in your house. The government unilaterally sets the price you must pay for simply being alive, breathing air and taking up space. A unilateral dictate is no social convention. That a significant chunk of the population is "glad" to pay their taxes out of what they believe is their - and your - moral duty does not constitute a "social norm" any more than the fact that a significant chunk of the population attends church services on Sunday morning constitutes a social norm.
"Tacit consent" is the last line of defense for the thugs in uniform when they are pressed to give a reason for why they are fining and incarcerating someone for failing to pay the State protection racket.
Clayton -