The answer, I’m afraid, is very few of us indeed.There is a widely held view that voting at elections is the way by which we give our consent to being governed by a particular group of politicians – this is an entirely false assumption as can be deduced logically from the fact that not everyone votes for the political party that eventually secures office. There may be a temptation to think that consent is somehow a collective notion, but this flies in the face of common sense. If somebody makes a decision on your behalf contrary to your wishes, then it is patently obvious that you have not consented - you have been coerced i.e. forced to accept the imposition of others, and this cannot be construed as consent under any circumstance.
When we vote at elections we are simply deciding which political party will run the executive. Consent is an entirely different matter. Consent is categorically an individual action. You are governed by the government of the day entirely because you and you alone consent. The trick is of course that ‘they’ have secured your consent without you realising how and when.
You give your consent every time you engage with the government or with one of its many institutions, such as the Inland Revenue. The next time you fill in your tax return, remember that at the moment you sign it, you are consenting to paying tax. The same applies when you complete your car registration, you are consenting to paying road tax.
The list goes on - whenever you sign your name, you are consenting.
No matter how difficult it may be to understand... TAX IS VOLUNTARY.
Now, those of you who feel compelled to shout ‘rubbish’ at the page – calm down and read on. Turn down your internal switch marked ‘conditioning’ and turn up the switch marked ‘logic’ and you will start to make more sense of it all – it won’t come easily but it will slowly start to dawn on you that all governance, including taxation - must be consensual. If not, then we are mere slaves, compelled to do as we are told.
How many times do we tell ourselves that government is there to serve us and not the other way around? The formula is perfectly simple. We need governance for our convenience to run vital services and our collective defence and for this ‘benefit’ we are prepared to make a voluntary contribution by way of taxation to the running of the system. If we do not contribute, then we do not partake of the benefits. This is a logical and sensible arrangement which most of us would agree is a good system. The problem is that the voluntary element has been replaced with the assumption of compulsion and with it we have lost control. The system has moved slowly towards a ‘pay-up-or-else’ format which of course suits the modern day political order who no longer consider themselves as holders of ‘office’ but holders of ‘power.’ The mind set has changed. Not only do they think that we must do as they command, but worryingly – so do we. We have been systematically hoodwinked into relinquishing our authority under the clever cloak of assumption.
When you combine the assumption (by you) of their absolute authority and the assumption (by them) of your automatic consent (subservience) - you have the very essence of how it is that ‘they’ control ‘us’ – the ultimate smoke and mirrors.
It is time we started to re-evaluate how government is supposed to work and reassert our authority by first understanding that we do not have to consent to their governance – elected or not - if they are not governing us according to our wishes.
If we accept the principle that we are governed by consent, then we must also accept that we have a right to withhold our consent - a mere extension of logic. If we have no right to withhold our consent, then it isn’t consent – plain and simple – it is a dictatorship. And the beauty of consent and withholding it is that we can do so at any time we chose. Elections are of no consequence to the withholding of our consent.
We are policed by consent. When a policeman asks us our name, and we give it, this is ‘tacit consent’
Many of us have heard the expression ‘acquiesce’ - another interesting word which means that your consent is assumed because you do not protest. To ‘acquiesce’ is to consent tacitly i.e. to consent without stating it directly. If somebody assumes authority over you and you do not protest then you will be deemed to have consented by acquiescence.
If somebody walks into a room of 100 strangers and declares ‘I am in charge here’, guess who will end up in charge, and his right hand man will be the guy who stands up and says ‘who says so.’ We are easily convinced of the authority of those who have the brass to declare it.
Consent is given in many ways. If you look up the meaning of consent, you will see amongst its several definitions the word ‘yield’ which means to ‘give way to’ – this should give you a clue as to how you might sometimes be giving your consent without fully realising it. If somebody tells you to do something and you meekly obey... you are consenting. When you get a parking notice... it is an invitation to pay.. If you pay, you are consenting. The police operate very effectively on the assumption of your consent – i.e. when they tell you to jump... you will jump, because if you tell them NO... there is a high degree of probability that they will arrest you and march you down to the police station to impose their will upon you. But in order to do so lawfully, they must get your consent first. How do they do this? Well upon your arrest they will simply ask you for it and almost certainly – you will give it, albeit unwittingly. An essential part of the arrest procedure is to read you your rights and then ask you ‘do you understand’ – the word ‘understand’ is synonymous with ‘stand-under’ – they are asking you whether you are prepared to ‘stand-under’ their authority... and when you answer yes – you are giving your consent.
Before we discuss ‘withholding consent’ let’s be clear about one thing... the political establishment have become so used to us doing their bidding without objection, that when we start to flex our muscles and remind them that it is they who serve us, they are not going to shift from their control mentality easily – they are going to put up a fight.. They will bring all their assumed authority down to bear on us, with a poorly informed police force ready in the wings to do their dirty work for them, albeit unwittingly. The powers-that-be will not be dragged down from their pedestals without a fight. They are going to take the assumption of their absolute authority to the Nth degree and challenge us to prove our point – and they will fight dirty.
Withholding consent requires a working knowledge of the legal fiction (see previous article in UK Column). By ‘working’, I mean an ability to walk into court and defend yourself against anything and everything they throw at you. One of their most potent weapons is fear, and they use it at the drop of a hat. They will threaten to fine you, imprison you and bankrupt you... if you do not succumb to their authority.
Some of us are up to the challenge and we are telling them to ‘bring it on’ – across the country individuals are going to court and using their ‘legal fiction’ defence to defy the authority of the government. We are refusing to pay speeding and parking fines... and we are refusing to pay our council tax. We will not pay until the government starts governing according to our wishes.
Lawful Rebellion is now moving apace. We are getting more nimble in the courts and have witnessed one judge after another stand up and walk out when confronted with our ‘we do not consent’ attitude.