Tyranny by Consent

Image via Wikipedia

“The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”—Frederic Douglas, A.D, 1857

“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully or unawaredly enslave themselves.”—Charles de Montesquieu

The third sentence of our “Declaration of Independence” declares, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The first half of that sentence (underlined) declares fundamental purpose of our government as envisioned by our Founders: to “secure” to every man, woman and even unborn child, those God-given, unalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The second half of the third sentence (“ . . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”) is less remarkable but introduces the subject of this article: the critical necessity for public consent to governmental powers–even if those powers are oppressive or tyrannical.

In fact, every governmental power, just or otherwise, is ultimately based on the “consent of the governed”. Yes, there’ll always be some minority who do not consent to the powers of government (traffic tickets, income taxes, etc.), but so long as the majority consent, the minority’s complaints will not only be ignored,that minority may even be oppressed.

For example, when Nazi’s exterminated Jews, that genocide took place with the consent of the majority of the German people. Yes, the German people might argue that they didn’t know about the genocide. But, they didn’t know because they didn’t care to know. Their apathy manifested their tacit consent to the genocide perpetrated by their own government.

In the past, American Negroes suffered oppression by government with the “consent” of both the American majority and the oppressed Negroes, themselves. When the Negroes withdrew their consent during the Civil Rights movement, the oppression was dramatically reduced.

When Stalin executed millions of people in the former Soviet Union, he did so with the tacit consent of most of the Soviet people. After Stalin died, that consent was withdrawn, and the Soviet Union slowly evolved from a overt tyranny to a “kinder, gentler” government.

Ultimately, all governmental powers exist only by virtue of the “consent” of the majority of the “governed”. This is true simply because government knows that it’s outnumbered and if the people really get angry, the government–and worse, the economy–can be destroyed.

Non-Violent Withdrawal of Consent

Although a tyrannical government may hold all the guns and seemingly hold all the power, there are ways for people to withdraw their consent and thereby destroy tyrannies without violence.

For example, Mohandas Gandhi pioneered resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience—a strategy based on noncooperation and nonviolence. Gandhi recognized that English oppression of India was ultimately based on the consent of the Indian people. Gandhi simply encouraged the Indian people to withdraw their consent, sit down, and stop working for the oppressive English. Result? England left India.

● Some oppression is driven by religion. For example, the Muslims will kill minorities that embrace alternative faiths. That kind of oppression can’t be stopped by mere civil disobedience of a minority.

However, most governmental oppression is political and, in fact, economic. Ultimately, oppression is not about right and wrong—it’s about profit and loss. Oppression is finally the oppressor’s extortion of wealth from the oppressed under the color of law.

Normally, oppression, tyranny, and even the seemingly less offensive “big government,” are all about themoney—and that’s the oppressor’s Achilles Heel. Oppression will persist only so long as it’s profitable. Remove the profit and the oppression dies. The profit for oppressors can’t be generated without the consentof the oppressed. When the Indian people stopped working, India became unprofitable, so the English left.

Why? Because once a significant number of people refuse to consent to work for the oppressor, the oppressor can’t afford to hire enough goons to compel the people to work. Likewise, killing the workers who won’t consent is tantamount to destroying the means of production.

How can an oppressive government generate more profits by killing the workers? It can’t.

Slavery and “consent” compelled by violence are comparatively easy in a primitive culture.  But in an advanced economy (that is is both highly efficient and highly vulnerable), consent can’t be compelled.  Once broad numbers of people become alienated and refuse to consent to governmental powers, the incidence of dissidence rises, and inevitably some 16-year old kid uses his PC to hack into and destroy some computer of the government or major corporation.  The resulting economic losses can be huge.

Inevitably, once the oppressed withdraw their consent to be oppressed, governmental oppression becomes unprofitable and fails.

Withdrawing consent isn’t easy, painless or instantaneous, but any people can slow down or stop working efficiently for the oppressor. As the nation becomes less efficient, less profitable, the tyranny tends to disintegrate.

● Something like that is happening here in the USA. The American people are beginning to withdraw their consent to big, oppressive government.

The most recent and dramatic evidence of this withdrawal of consent was the Tea Party movement that drove a number of incumbents out of office in last year’s election.

But there are other, less dramatic, less publicized signs that the American people are withdrawing their consent to “big government”—and these withdrawals may ultimately be more effective than even the Tea Party.

Small change you can believe in?

A friend of mine applied for an “exemption” from paying Texas state sales tax (8.25%). Any Texan can do the same. My friend must now provide a “sales tax exempt” form to every company where he does business. He carries paperwork with him into every restaurant, grocery store and business.

I’ve been with him when he spent 15 minutes educating a grocery clerk and store manager to get his exemption recognized and approved. Result? He saved 50 cents in sales tax while I watched in frustration.

My friend refuses to “feed the beast” with sales tax. I, on the other hand, am too busy to spend 15 minutesfighting for 50 cents so I “feed the beast” its 8.25% and be on my way.

I don’t know how many others have also started to refuse to pay sales tax. But such people are withdrawing their consent to the oppression of big government. I, like most Texans, still consent to that oppression. So sales taxes and big government persist. For now.

But saving 8.25% on the cost of all goods and services purchased each year is equivalent to gaining one month’s extra take home pay. I therefore believe that the number of Texans (and individuals in other states)who withdraw their consent to sales taxes (and government oppression) will increase.

Traffic tickets

Last March, KVUE-11 TV Austin, Texas, reported that the “Texas Driver Responsibility Act” allowed drivers convicted of certain traffic violations (especially drunk driving) to be subjected to additional fines (surcharges) imposed by the State. These additional fines could cost drivers between of $100 to $2,000 per year—for as many as three years. The alleged purpose for these surcharges was to fund highways and trauma centers. Thus, as always, the object of this oppressive legislation was money.

Today, State Rep. Sylvester Turner (who helped write the bill in A.D. 2003) admits that this law “does not work. We made a mistake.”

Why? Because at least 60% of the surcharges were never paid. 60% of those ticketed refused to consent to the additional fines.

Result? At least 1.2 million Texas driver’s licenses have been suspended for not paying/consenting to the surcharges. Most of those drivers are still driving—but without a drivers license, and therefore without auto insurance. That’s costing the insurance industry at least $400 million per year and dramatically complicating some automobile accident lawsuits.

● In “Texas’ steep surcharges for driving violations clog courts, increase DWI dismissals” the Dallas Morning News (“DMN”) reported that this failed legislation had additional adverse consequences: clogged courts.

“A steep surcharge program for drunken driving and other driving violations is clogging state courts and causing the dismissal rate for DWI cases to skyrocket . . . . the Texas Driver Responsibility Program has had a “devastating” effect on the Texas court system, and judges across the state are reporting at least two years of pending driving-while-intoxicated cases as more defendants seek trials.”

The entire traffic ticket system relies on the public’s consent to pay theirs fines by mail rather than litigate. But Texans are withdrawing their consent to pay by mail and instead choosing to litigate.

A good traffic cop can probably write at least $1,000 worth of tickets per hour. That’s a gross of $40,000 per week per traffic cop for the local municipality. And it’s almost all profit.

But if drivers withdraw their consent to pay their fines, they go to court. If they demand a real trial, the municipality can spend $10,000 or more fighting to collect a few hundred dollars in fines.

That’s very bad for bidness. Municipalities can’t run an efficient extortion racket if it costs them $10,000 to collect $200. Every court case eats up the profits from 50 tickets. If just 2% of those ticketed withdrew their consent and litigated their tickets, the profits from whole traffic ticket racket might disappear. If 3% contested in court, traffic tickets might cost the municipality more money than they take in.

Given that the oppressor’s purpose is profit, once the traffic ticket business starts costing the municipalities money, they‘ll stop issuing tickets. Municipalities aren’t about “law and order”; they are businesses that are all about profit and loss. When traffic tickets become unprofitable, traffic cops will leave the highways much like England left India.

Nobody has to threaten, shoot or bomb to stop traffic tickets. All that’s required is for roughly 3% of those who receive traffic tickets to withdraw their consent to be fined and go to court. Without our consent, oppression becomes unprofitable and tends to perish.

Income Taxes

Ten years ago, I saw a letter from an Assistant Commissioner of the IRS who guesstimated that there were roughly 60 million non-filers in the US. If so, about one-third of American workers, don’t bother to file income tax returns.

What can the IRS do about this non-compliance? Not much. The IRS files about 1,000 criminal charges per year and generally two or three charges per defendant. That means the IRS selectively charges only about 300-400 Americans for criminal prosecution each year. If the IRS rate of criminal prosecution increased to 1000 defendants per year, it might still take about 60,000 years to prosecute all current non-filers.

The income tax system can’t be enforced. It can’t work without the public’s consent.

● On January 6th, A.D. 2011, USA Today published “IRS Tax Liens Jump by 60%, But How Effective Are They? IRS liens filed against taxpayers jumped 60% since the start of the national recession . . . .”

Does this 60% increase mean the IRS has become 60% more aggressive—or that 60% more Americans arewithdrawing their consent to be taxed?

“The IRS filed more than 1 million liens in federal fiscal year 2010, the highest in nearly two decades . . . . Lien filings can badly damage or destroy a taxpayer’s creditworthiness . . . . These liens can mean it’sharder to get a job, find affordable housing or buy insurance. . . . Since the IRS pays to process the liens and file them with local county clerks, the report said it is “questionable whether liens generate much, if any, direct revenue.”

Without the public’s consent, the income tax laws simply don’t work. If enough people simply stopped paying income taxes, the IRS might cease to exist.

For the moment, large numbers of taxpayers are withdrawing their consent to be taxed, but—thanks towithholding—the consent of the taxpayer is not as important as the consent of employers. So long asemployers deduct taxes from their employees’ checks before the employees are paid, the IRS will persist.

But if employers ever withdraw their consent to withhold on behalf of the IRS, the entire income tax system will collapse.

● Consent to oppression is not simply about whichever taxes you consent to pay—it’s also about what you consent to buy:

Government Bonds

In Quantitative Easing 1, the Federal Reserve purchased US treasuries because those bonds couldn‘t be sold at near full face value to the public. Why not? Because the public recognized that the federal government’s credit rating was exaggerated and that the chance to profit from lending money to government was diminishing.

Americans and the world are essentially withdrawing their consent to lend money at a loss to the federal government. If that withdrawal hadn‘t been blunted by the Federal Reserve’s decision to pay full price for government bonds, the purchase price of US bonds might’ve dropped dramatically and exposed the federal government as a bad credit risk and probable insolvent.

As the world withdraws its consent to lend money at a loss to the US government, that government will be increasingly squeezed between taxpayers withdrawing their consent to pay taxes, and lenders withdrawing their consent to lend.

Result? Enormous deficits and soon, a breakdown in government’s ability to provide services.

If people won’t consent to be taxed and won’t consent to lend, how can “big government” continue?

It can’t.

Gold & Silver

Thanks to inflation, since A.D. 1933, the paper dollar has shed 97% of its former value. Inflation is a form of extortion perpetrated against the American people by the federal government and Federal Reserve. Because the rate of extortion was fairly modest (1% to 2% annually), Americans consented to be robbed and continued to store their wealth in the form of paper dollars.

But, today, the fiat dollar is losing value at an intolerable rate. Therefore, those relatively few Americans who have savings are withdrawing their consent to be robbed by the Feds, and are instead trading their fiat dollars for gold or silver.

Thus, the purchase of gold and silver is a kind of civil disobedience not so different from India‘s refusal in A.D. 1948 to work for England.

● The people of the world are likewise withdrawing their consent to be robbed by the Feds. As measured by the US Dollar Index, the US dollar’s value has fallen by nearly 40% in the past 10 years.

Result? The dollar’s status as “world reserve currency” is eroding. Foreign nations that once demanded dollars to pay for their oil, now prefer other currencies.

The world is withdrawing its “consent” to the American government and even the “American Empire”.

Result? Just as England was once forced to leave India, the withdrawal of international consent will force the US government to abandon significant portions of the world stage. Without the world’s consent, we can’t afford to be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea.

Domestically, Americans’ withdrawal of consent will force government to shrink in size and power.

● Government won’t surrender its former power easily. We can expect conflicts—possibly violence—on both the domestic and international stages before the federal government accedes to the withdrawals of consent.

I don’t expect the federal government to die—but it could. Remember the former USSR? It lost it’s people’s consent. That loss was manifested in a popular joke among the Soviet people: “They [the government] pretend to pay us; we [the people] pretend to work”. That joke illustrated that the Soviet people had withdrawn their consent to the oppressive powers of the Soviet government.

The idiots in the Kremlin tried to compel that consent by force of arms, but, by definition, consent must be voluntary. Result? The Soviet Union degraded, dissolved and suddenly disappeared.

If our government used violence to compel our “consent,” it would only provide additional evidence that our government was morally bankrupt and operating without the people’s consent. The federal government’s only chance to survive is to accept its diminished capacity without resorting to violence. If our government uses force to compel “consent,” the government itself will perish.

If you’re troubled by big government, by the looming prospects of fascism and oppression, recognize thatyour consent is a principle cause for those problems. Withdraw your consent to oppression and oppression will end. It won’t end quickly or painlessly, but it’ll end.

Written at arm’s length and without the singular “United States” (“this state”) by Alfred Adask

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/tyranny-by-consent/