Huemer argues that we cannot currently interpret the US government as deriving its political authority from the consent of the governed. In a previous post, I briefly summarized his persuasive case against that idea.
Now I want to consider the question: how could the USG transform itself so that it did have the consent of the governed, while changing almost nothing else? What changes would they need to make?
Let's pretend the government is a corporation composed of its citizens or members and they all sign a contract agreeing to shun all noncitizens (unless they have a visa or are located outside of US territory). They could treat the US constitution as their corporate bylaws. Persons who opt out of the contract become noncitizens. At any moment, citizens can consent, emigrate or secede. If they secede, their neighbors will deny them passage through the neighbors' property. They are still able to occupy their land, but no longer entitled to use public roads or the other local infrastructure (sewers, electricity, gas, water, etc.). They are enclosed. (Their property would technically no longer lie within the territory of the USG, but it would be treated as still part of that territory for the purpose of determining who citizens can/can’t interact with.)
How does this differ from the status quo? Someone needs to write up the citizenship contract and see to it that they all either sign, secede or emigrate. Landowners would be able to secede and create new territorial clubs outside the government's jurisdiction. And the government could make good on its brag about deriving its authority from the consent of the governed.
Contract
I hereby chose to: (choose one only)
[ ] consent to the contractual terms below.
[ ] emigrate. (I will leave the country before submitting this contract, so that no one needs to shun me on my way out.)
[ ] secede, separating myself and the land I own from the infrastructure, territory and jurisdiction of the USG.
Terms
-
Shun: I will refuse to do business with or communicate with or allow to pass onto or through my property any noncitizens of the US who lack valid visas or green cards and who are located within the territory or former territory of the US. I may do business with citizens of foreign countries so long as they are outside the US or within the US on a legal visa or green card. I will shun all stateless emigres and secessionists, refusing to speak to them or assist them in any way.
-
Enclose: If I have authority over any utility, road or other communication or transportation infrastructure or useful service, I will deny access and service to any noncitizen lacking a visa or any property outside the territory of the US unless authorized by law.
-
Obey: I agree to pay any tax and obey any law that is duly established by Congress according to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
-
Receive: The US government agrees to refrain from causing its citizens to shun me so long as I fulfill these terms. I also may vote in elections if I satisfy the legal criteria and register according to law.
-
Consider: As consideration, I will deliver one dollar along with this signed contract to the appropriate authorities.
Citizen/noncitizen signature____________________
Date_______________
On behalf of Government: signature_________________
Date_______________
Can the government demand that we sign such a contract, leave the country or secede? Would that place us under duress? What, other than my lack of training in writing contracts, would prevent this contract or one similar from binding anyone who signed it?
Would in even need to be legally binding, since every citizen at every moment is free to opt out of the contract? Instead of disputing the bindingness of the contract, a citizen who wishes to break free of the contract can do so at any time by submitting a new contract declaring they have emigrated or seceded. The only possible point of dispute would be how to interpret obedience, not whether or not the signatories are bound by the contract.
Failure to submit a contract or use of US infrastructure equates to choosing obedience. So a much shorter version of the choices would be:
-
I have emigrated.
-
I have seceded and separated my property from all US infrastructure.
-
I will obey.
Would people be willing to sign this contract? Why not? What does it commit them to that they have not already accepted? In what way does the government violate their rights to demand that they choose? No one is morally obligated to do any of the things the contract prohibits them from doing, nor is anyone morally entitled to any of the things that would be withheld from secessionists and emigres.
Libertarians believe in freedom of association, which includes the right to refuse to cooperate with someone. Do they have a right to refuse individually, but lack the right to do so as a group?
Unlike the situation criticized by Huemer, the citizens are not placed under duress, persons who consent are treated differently than those who refuse, the government does commit to provide something to those who consent and explicit refusal overrides implicit consent. So all the USG must do to transform itself into a “voluntary” government (well, from the standpoint of its citizens only, not that of foreigners) is to announce the existence of this contract which provides all citizens with a way to opt out, and then pass a law against interacting with former US citizens who have seceded or re-entered the country illegally.
Boom.
