"There has to be a way to dissent that does not require you to forfeit something to which the other party has no right...When people stay in a country, that doesn’t prove their implicit consent to Political Authority because the government has no presupposed rights to force them to leave or follow their laws."
I found this to be the most interesting insight here! I've always felt a bit iffy about some of the arguments made in favor of the social contract, and I think you've articulated the key counter-argument really well here. Many pro-social contract arguments beg the question in a way, by starting from their conclusion! If dissenting to a claim of authority is met with retribution (that would only be justified if the claimant already has just authority), there is no consent in its true form of the word.
"There has to be a way to dissent that does not require you to forfeit something to which the other party has no right...When people stay in a country, that doesn’t prove their implicit consent to Political Authority because the government has no presupposed rights to force them to leave or follow their laws."
I found this to be the most interesting insight here! I've always felt a bit iffy about some of the arguments made in favor of the social contract, and I think you've articulated the key counter-argument really well here. Many pro-social contract arguments beg the question in a way, by starting from their conclusion! If dissenting to a claim of authority is met with retribution (that would only be justified if the claimant already has just authority), there is no consent in its true form of the word.
So where does government derive its authority? Unless the implication is that it has none?