Unlocking Your Life From Government

March 9th, 2013   Submitted by Darryl W Perry

INDEPENDENCEThe White House announced, via email written by Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy, R. David Edelman, that it supports the right of consumers to unlock cellphones.

The statement reads in part, “The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones…. This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs — even if it isn’t the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.”

I’m pleasantly surprised that President Obama supports the rights of consumers to choose which company will service their telephones and other wireless devices. I wish that he would remain consistent and support the right of the people to choose their government.

How did I make the leap from unlocking cellphones to unlocking government? It’s not as broad a jump as one may think. Suppose you were given the choice of selecting a cellphone provider and told that you can only change your phone, plan and/or policy every four years. Now, suppose that one year into your contract, you realize that you made a horrible choice, but had no way of canceling your service. You would not be happy and would be forced to wait until the end of your contract. Currently, there are ways to get out of a contract. Generally one is required to pay a cancellation fee, but it does break the contract.

Suppose again that your neighbors all decide jointly which phone, plan, and provider everyone in the area gets for the next four years, again with no manner of making a change. Once again, you’re forced to wait until the end of the term to express your opinion and hope you can sway your neighbors to choose a phone, plan, and provider that you like.

That last example is exactly what happens every few years in towns, cities, counties and States around the country. Voters go to the polls and express their opinion on which candidate, party and policies they prefer, with the plurality getting what they wanted (at the time) for a term of years. If the joint opinion of the plurality changes in the middle of the term, in most cases there is no option for recourse.

Why then should people not have a manner in which they can let it be known that they do not consent to the ideas expressed by the local (or national) government? Why must everyone be obligated to live under the policies chosen by a plurality of people as expressed on a given day?

The idea seems foreign to most people, and they would likely claim “it would never work,” or “it’s never been done before.” Both claims are, in fact, false! In Medina during the time of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, “Pagans, Jews, and Muslims shared the same roads, traded in the same markets, and drank from the same wells. They were part of different social spheres, sharing no obligations to each other except those they contracted. Legal systems were not separated by territorial boundaries, as States are today. They existed right on top of one another, shifting according to consent, not jurisdiction.” Similar overlapping governments existed in Gaelic areas during the middle ages, and to a lesser extent in the United States before the New Deal when most people received social services from fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies.

Allow me to ask again: why should people be forced to be subject to a government to which they do not consent?

Tags: , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Unlocking Your Life From Government”

  1. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Suppose people in a geographic community decide to enter into a contract with a particular service, would anyone moving into that community be required to use that service despite the fact that they were not living in the community when the others made the decision to use that particular service? Would the children and grandchildren of the people who entered into the agreement be bound to it?

    There are people who believe that an agreement entered into by at best 2% of the population of a portion of North America is binding on people living in the part of North America known as the USA today.


    • A contract can only bind those who sign the contract and only during the life of the contract. If a signatory to a contract later revokes his consent, then the contract (as is the case in most circumstances) there are provisions for voiding or terminating the contract.
      You can NOT sign me into a contract to which I do not consent to be a party.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        I intended my response to be rhetorical. I was refering to the US constitution. A small portion of the polulation(the signers and majority of state legislators) throughout the then 13 states throughtout 1787 and 1788 agreed to it. There are people today who believe that it is binding on evryone residing in the USA today.


  2. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    Meh Obama can kiss my hairy white ass about the only way I’d like that dousche bag even a little would be if he killed himself.