Deriving Consent Through Beatings

Associated Press        AP - Sun Apr 15, 9:36 AM ET

 

OMON, riot police, officers confront an opposition demonstrator in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sunday, April 15, 2007. It was not immediately clear what sparked the violence after the rally, which city authorities had authorized and took place under a heavy police presence with at least one helicopter hovering above. Although city authorities gave permission for the rally in a square on the edge of central St. Petersburg, they had banned plans for the demonstrators to march afterwards to the city's government headquarters. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)

 

If legitimate government is derived from the consent of the governed, then what do you have when that government, once created from prior consent, decides on its own to protect itself from changing consent? How can any government ever be considered legitimate after that? Especially when it uses force, as in the image at left, to garner that consent. To me, that's not consent, that's submission. Government is the product of the people's consent and has no business at the table when it comes time to decide what new direction the people want to take it. You don't ask your old Ford if it's OK to change its worn out engine. Why should you have to get permission from government to change it?