Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
You're taking this phrase out of context. What the Declaration said was:
true, I didn't put in the associated reasoning.
1. There are certain universal human rights, like life, liberty, and property^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the pursuit of happiness. 2. To protect these rights, people form governments. Only the baddest kid on the block can protect her own rights, and only if she never sleeps. The rest of us need the police.
I tend to define government more liberally in that it does not merely exist to protect rights-- the 20th century saw a rise in government that tried to be a social force. this may have failed, but it does point out that people want a government to do more than merely protect their rights. in other words, the 1776 definition of government is reasonably slightly modified. government in its essence is a form of organized human collaboration/cooperation imho. it is a nervous system for a society.
3. Ergo, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. I read this more as a conclusion than as a premise.
I think it is both. it is a conclusion of the reasoning and the premise for government. if the government does not have the consent of the governed, it is not a legitimate government-- that is the basic implication.
This is all that Hobbes, Locke, and Montequieu said. Rousseau was different, but he was a kook.
ah, but all great visionaries are usually first considered kooks. the whole idea that government exists by consent of the governed was a quite radical idea challenging the existing dogma of divine right of kings.
This is quite different from saying, "The government has the right to do what the majority says it can do." Government doesn't have any rights, only delegated powers.
that's what I tried to point out. it all hinges on the phrase, "the government exists by the consent of the governed". I don't really see how any of your points are contrary to anything I wrote in the essay, despite your seeming to present them as if they are.