We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Notice two phrases that I highlighted.
Point #1: The purpose of governments is to secure our RIGHTS. Yes it can do other things, when they don't conflict with our rights
Point #2: Governments derive their powers from the CONSENT of the governed
However, it's pretty clear that the government is now as interested in our rights and consent as an inebriated Brock Turner. A government that theoretically serves us actually rules us: it takes on any new power that it wants, denies and curtails our rights at every turn, denies us the information that we need about its functioning. The mainstream media are utterly useless and the only way that we obtain insight into what our government is actually doing is through the bold actions of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Anonymous. Naturally, these people are imprisoned or forced to flee the country that they have served, while the media and politicians argue about how they should be punished, from lengthy jail terms to extrajudicial execution.
If a government whose primary purpose is to protect our rights actually goes rogue and makes it a primary task to attack them, maybe it's time to discuss whether it's time to withhold our consent to their activities and how to do so effectively.
- vote third party - people are obsessed with the choice of left vs right wing authoritarian and the important question is whether to continue choosing authoritarians or choose a freedom-oriented candidate
- don't vote at all - maybe voting for anyone IS giving consent to an out of control system
- holding up signs and yelling - potentially useful, if the media notices large numbers turning out
- armed revolt - has a number of down sides :)
Or we could just ignore an inconvenient question and continue to post cat pictures, while partisans argue about whether the US should elect Hitler or Stalin as President. Sorry that Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn't a serious contender, his supporters just didn't start campaigning soon enough...
