Does True Consent Exist? Questioning Autonomy in Society

Ive been slightly occupied with the idea of consent today. The idea of autonomy is what sprung the concept of consent is it not? Physical touching without consent is molestation or abuse, sex without consent is rape. Taking something without consent is theft. Being somewhere without consent is trespassing. Listening to peoples conversations without consent is eavesdropping, on a device it's wiretapping. Opening mail without consent is tampering. As children we're stripped of our ability to consent, rightly so because of the inability of a child to fully grasp the dangers or intent of giving consent for things or of people asking for consent. Our parents make our choices for us as they truly have a better understanding. As we grow we are taught about consent and slowly given autonomy. Typically this progresses as we advance in age, ability and understanding. As we enter adulthood we are given the idea that we have full autonomy but this isn't actually true. Once adulthood is reached you are once again stripped of your autonomy, you are instead told you must vote for the individuals who will from that point make your decisions for you. This is done without your consent, you are not asked to participate, you are not asked if you want or need someone to decide what it right and wrong for you, you are ordered to do so and if you refuse it it still done without your consent and you are responsible for following the decisions made for you. Who today agreed to allow governments to claim ownership of land? To determine if you can fish or hunt? To decide what you can grow and when and where? Which of you consented to the idea of society as it is at this moment? At what point did you give consent to have your right as a being stripped from you and agree to live in boxes, to go spend your days in other boxes, to get your food from boxes? Do you remember? Do you remember asking to be a laborer for others so that you can survive and they can thrive? Do you remember when you gave consent to be told what you can own, ingest, or be? If you don't then is the argument to be made that your consent is implied by participation? If you're forced to participate or face homelessness, starvation, captivity, or excommunication how is that implied consent and not force? So my question is does consent actually exist for the individual or is it merely a dream fed to you so that you don't see the abilities stolen from you?

The post critically examines the concept of consent, arguing that societal structures, particularly adult governance and labor systems, strip individuals of true autonomy without explicit consent. It questions whether participation in society constitutes implied consent or is a result of coercion, ultimately asking if individual consent truly exists or is a fabricated ideal.

A government's power relies solely on people believing it has legitimate power when in actuality the government doesn't take our autonomy we give it our power. If we all or enough of us decide tomorrow that we're done with the same oppressive constructs that have ruled humanity for millennia (government, war, religion, currency, &:prison/slavery) then their power evaporates.

@ayna that's the question I'm posing though, do you actually give away your power? In order to give something you must actually own it to begin with, do you own your consent? Did you give it willingly, or has it been taken from you? I must disagree about your thoughts about government power. A government's power doesn't lie in some imaginary trade off, it's true power comes from manipulation and force. Lies told that you need them to protect you, that they can ensure you have a better life, more comfort, more access. It comes from willingness to kill, to restrain, to steal you away. That's the true power of government, not that you give your power to them, it's that they will kill you, starve you, restrict you if you don't comply. So, I still present the question, does consent actually exist?

I get what you're saying though we were born into a system already in place. Our government was intended to be fluid.

@ayna exactly, the US government was never intended to act as it now does, the entire plan of its inception was that the individual would be free from shackles of mandated compliance of every aspect of your life. So when did we agree that we would give up that freedom? At some point the consent of hundreds of millions was stolen and who had such authority over people of the present and future to make such a deal? Furthermore if you find that you do not agree to the system we find ourselves and wish to live as you feel you should under what authority does anyone actually have to say otherwise? How can you be held responsible for using your autonomy and revoking the consent that you never gave?

@whoami I'm not a fan of government in general, but what do you think the alternative should be? I ask bc I've been doing a thought experiment where the goal is autonomy, sovereignty and community. But the question I impose is how do we move away from our current system , and what will it be replaced with?

@ayna ideally for me, the alternative is a combination of communism, socialism and capitalism. None of the major forms of government work, but those big 3 all have redeeming qualities that I believe combined can allow for unification of the masses while meeting the basic needs and encouraging progress. We remove the current legal structure, replace it with simple, easily understood laws that are as unrestrictive of the individual as reasonably possible. We get back to the idea that our constitution is the law of law. We cap profit and limit the hoarding of resources. We limit what can be claimed as property and we stop treating corporations as individuals. For these I would imagine that we no longer have a federal, state, local government as they are but reframed as protectors of the people. No more law makers but law implementers. I think we would start with the basics, reforming the Constitution defining the rights of the people and the job of any government structure. To start I think the new constitution would include such as the right to basic needs, shelter, water, food, education and medical care and non-discrimination. The job of the government is to ensure that those rights are met and upheld by communities. I would imagine that each city, village, township would hold their own elections as they do now but unless their laws violate the basic rights laid out in the new constitution they are free from state and federal intrusion. That corporate entities cannot own more than the business they are. Having a company own other companies is deceiving consumers, by offering an illusion of choice where there is none. Corporations cannot own land, or buildings, everything would have to be owned by individuals so that when they behave unethically or are harmful someone can be held accountable and the corporation cannot continue or simply rebrand. This also stops people from walking away unscathed when a corporation is held accountable. As much as I would love to say that currency could be eliminated, and a good will or a trade based system could be implemented I just don't believe it would be realistic. So instead I would suggest capping corporate and personal profits, the specific number it should be capped at i cannot suggest at the moment but I do not believe there should be billionaires or corporations earning billions in profit, no one earns that much wealth without stealing, lying, cheating and hurting others. So I think it should be based on a percentage of cost. Realistically if your making 100% profit on something that should be enough seeing that means you essentially lost nothing to produce it ship it, sale it, but for the sake of argument let's say 300%. That means that you paid everything involved from materials, wages, machines, utilities, logistics, taxes everything and received triple those costs in return. So the question is what happens to the overages, I think we take those overages and we utilize them to fund the basic needs of the citizens. That's how we pay for the people who maintain the infrastructure of communities. What happens when you reach your cap as an individual? I say you can continue without income if your passion is what drives you until you reach a worth of half of that cap and then you can go back to incurring wealth again, or you could retire and live out your days as you see fit, you can pass the torch on to someone else and allow them to do it for themselves and so on and on. It may occur to some that if basic needs are met then some will not work, and to that I say they're correct. Many will not have incentives, many people do not want more than the basics, and for those people I say that's fine, do not go work in a factory, don't build, don't seek profit, but you must contribute somehow, so for those that do not want more they can do simple things such as community services, they can help keep their neighborhoods clean they can take on roles of clerical government work, they can tend to their neighbors, they can attend school. They can also elect to opt out of the communities and be self sufficient if they wish. There many many other things to be considered and of course this is just a basic idea for consideration. The real question is how to make the transition to where we are to something that could be shaped into something resembling they ideas above. I would love to say it could be accomplished through civil discourse and changing of hearts and minds, that reason could be spoken and accepted and those who run the system currently would accept that change is needed and help facilitate it. That agreements could be reached and acted upon with willingness but truthfully that is not plausible. To enact such a dramatic change, those who support it would have to force it, war, death and blood seems to be the only way people give up their control. Throughout history there has been no peaceful change to regimes. Unless some being of great ability appears and changes the people who run things the people themselves must be removed. If the people wish to regain their autonomy and remove the shackles they will have to break them and take back what is theirs.

Oh wow who are you indeed bc you pretty much just laid out a new form of government I've been working on a d how to best transition with the least amount of disruption as possible. Our current 3 branches are combined into one this is the Power Branch representing Liberty and is responsible for taxes, national security and foreign trade and diplomacy. Next we have the Profits this is the pursuit of happiness. This branch oversees corporations, and Consumerism, corporations at this point have been restructured the people have a direct vote a true democracy, The final branch The People ( or Life) this represents the needs of the ppl healthcare, housing, emergency funding, education. The Profits branch is 100% responsible for supporting the Social or ppl branch. Which also is put to direct votes. I've also been trying with summoned Congress similar to jury duty each quarter 435 citizens are randomly chosen (states/districts still apply)to serve that quarter in Congress where they are to vote on the bill the previous Congress drafted, and draft a bill that the next incoming Congress will vote on. This keeps it fair and out of special interest or influence. There's so much more to it. I've gotten 100s if pages of notes, research, and N action plan on how to get from our current structure to true freedom and what's best for humanity.

@ayna I would give just about anything to move to a society like this. Things currently have gone too far for too long, there's so much that could be done that would benefit so many more and still allow those that want more to have more.