Read some history.

Such a modifier is not needed to interpet it as unanimous conscent. Note that there were no modifiers that said anything about majority conscent.

L. Neil Smith wrote a very interesting novel in 1979 called “The Probability Broach” based on the premise that Jefferson had written in “unanimous consent” and discussing some of the consequences of that alternate path in history. I think there is some value to this idea, and the novel is a lot of fun. Read it for free at bigheadpress.com in graphic novel form.

It didn’t mean the consent of every single person.

But it should have, and still can.”

How do you know this when it does not say?

Another common fallacy among people is to think “If people just listened to / read the / believed the same things I did, all would be well in the world.”

Commie means something, and it does NOT mean “Anyone who disagrees with G.E. about the government’s power”, you ignorant slut.

I understood that point. However, I’m doubting the phrase meant the consent of every single person. Logic would dictate they were using the “governed” as a collective term.

But it should have, and still can.

So it comes down to, did they mean every single individual must give consent or the government authority isn’t legitimate or were they talking about the governed as a collective?”

The Declaration of Independence says that the only purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that government must have the conscent of the governed. It doesn’t say the conscent of the majority of people in a geographic territory, it just says conscent of the governed.

I doubt that GE has given his conscent to be governed.

Just because GE happens to live here it does not mean that he conscented to be governed by this government or any other.”

I don’t disagree with your statement. But clearly the vast majority of the governed have given consent for the government to have certain authority.

So it comes down to, did they mean every single individual must give consent or the government authority isn’t legitimate or were they talking about the governed as a collective?

I would assume collective by the phrase “We the people” in the Constitution.

The LP is falling short because we have no media access nor millions of dollars to run a successful campaign.

The LP is also falling short because there are people who are idiots and/or are corrupt and/or are lazy and/or are weak willed who are in positions in the party that they should not hold.

“I, the Individual, did NOT and DO NOT. Commie.”

Actually you did. You are a citizen of the United States, and by living here and participating in this society you have given the government the authority for certain actions.”

Oh come on, that’s weak. Even the Declaration of Independence says that government has to have the “conscent of the governed”.

Just because GE happens to live here it does not mean that he conscented to be governed by this government or any other.

Actually you did. You are a citizen of the United States, and by living here and participating in this society you have given the government the authority for certain actions.

We (the people) give the state certain authority to do things.

I, the Individual, did NOT and DO NOT. Commie.

I agree the 4 planks were important. I disagree that he would have been well served to be there.

Why stand on the stage with two socialists who are lying and want to increase government? Because it gives good face time?

“FYI: I don’t think the state has any authority to do anything ever.”

This is a fallacy. We (the people) give the state certain authority to do things.

According to Barr the state governments do, in fact, have the authority to criminalize drugs and define personal romantic relationships.

FYI: I don’t think the state has any authority to do anything ever. But I also don’t think the federal government has the authority to STOP them from doing much.

We arent talking about “Federalists” but about federalists–those who endorse the concept of federalism. Try to keep up GE.

I’m keeping up just fine. Hence, I changed the capitalization of the word. I was not contradicting what you said about “federalists;” I was only ADDING a statement about F-ederalists (capital F, keep up).

A legitimate party? How many members of Congress do you have? How many state legislators? How many mayors of large cities? Medium cities? How many governors or statewide officials?
A legitimate party, maybe. But you DO need to be sucking up–to any and every one.

Nah, they do that every time. Every election I can remember has always been “the most important one in our lifetime.”

Snubgate was nothing, and I fully supported Barr’s reasoning. We are a legitimate party. We don’t need to suck up to a Republican for votes.

I disagree. The four planks that the four main alternative candidates agree (and Barr later said he does in fact agree) are important issues that the major parties oppose or at best ignore. He would have been well served to be there. However, I will grant that it did not hurt him as much as I expected.