You cant vote out the government

You cant vote out the government. Even in more democratic countries, at best you get to vote out a member of the legislature provided they live in the same area as you. The same people for every other part of the government remain in place. This is more acute in monarchies like the UK where ultimately the executive, the judiciary and more than half the legislative branch of government remain right where they are regardless of how people vote. I could go on about how stitched up the seats in the lower legislative house are but I think Ive made my point regarding the idea that you can vote out a government.

The people never have given consent to be governed, they have been slaughtered, oppressed, coerced and compelled to obey government since the last invasion/civil war/revolution. It is exactly akin to intergenerational slavery. The idea that there is consent is a false post facto justification for hhe social conditions which prevail. It is a further digression from the truth to suggest that individual consent is not required because it assumes that everyone else does consent while disacknowledging everyones ability to either give or renounce it.

Will you conveniently not understand this too? It is no different from the forms of slavery of the past. The compulsion to obey remains, the threat of violence remains, the sumize of the feudal manor or plantation may be bigger but all in all, the uk government is as absolute as the times when the divine right of kings was argued by authoritarians slaughtering people in the name of christ.

It is absurd and self contradictory now as it was then and there are significant numbers of people kept in comfortable enough slavery to not understand their own true social circumstance let alone care about others in much less comfortable slavery.

Im not saying slavery is a bad thing, afterall, what good is it to discuss moral principals at this junction. What I am saying is that if there is a furry four legged creature that says "woof", it does not become something other than what it is simply because you call it by any other name but a dog.

The same to can be said for slavery, kidnap, theft, robbery, extortion, fraud, murder and the many other crimes which remain what they are because of what they are in disregard of who commits them or what they call these acts.


Now read the last paragraph....

Logically, there must be disconsent, long before fire is brought against fire. Will you not accept that the governments of the world are actually running enslavement rackets - just as these governments would define it if anyone not in their club was doing as they do - compelling people to obey them intergenerationally to such extremes that the enslaving class claims primary right over peoples homes, businesses, children, possessions, self defence, their bodies and even their minds.

.......and see if it makes anymore sense, because the point about voting legitimising the governments criminality has been spinning round in circles to exhaustion.

There is no consent, individual or otherwise. It is irrelevant. People have no say in the parliaments laws but they are compelled to obey the head of parliament by the threat of force regardless of ANY consent. This is no different to them being compelled by the threat of violence to obey the plantation owner. By the same sound reasoning, on the same sound premises, it is called slavery.

A is forced to serve B

There is no consent.