In “Begging the Question“, Stephan highlights a logical fallacy often used to justify the State’s existence: the existence of a democratic state is often justified in terms of democracy. The justification assumes away the problem to be justified. He concludes that mere majority consent is not enough to justify government, that it must originate from unanimous consent. This is easy to understand if you start from a first principle that no man or group of men may subject another man to their compact without his explicit consent.
In practice, unanimity has never happened. There have always been disenfranchised groups: women, blacks, children, non-land-owners, etc. The existence of these disenfranchised groups is proof that even if unanimity was acheived among the landed gentry, democracy was still used to justify democracy, and that no unanimity occurred. In reality, there was dissent even among the landed gentry.
Moreover, the unanimity model is still fatally flawed unless it recognizes an unlimited right of secession which hinges upon the ability of constituents to renounce fiefdom and acquire allodial title to real property. The creation of a government necessarily involves the presumption of perpetual monopoly privilege, decreed through the issuance of a land patent or other similar device, without which it is a mere voluntary association of men. A government that recognizes the right of secession, however, is not a government in the true sense of the word, because when individuals are free to renounce its reign, its monopoly privilege evaporates.
If there is a cogent argument explaining how an individual can permanently renounce his natural rights, I’d love to hear it. To my knowledge, no such argument exists! Such an argument must refute the equality principle, i.e., no individual can have more rights than any other individual and furthermore, it must not presume future generations to be consenting subjects, since future generations can not yet possibly consent.
What this boils down to, is that democracy is simply popular tyranny. Popular to whom? Why, the tyrants of course! Tyranny is always popular among the tyrants!
All government is slavery. Even if all participants are initially willing subjects, the moment one individual desires to exercise his natural right to self-determination, and is denied by the government or the governors, the maxim is proven, since the existence of the government no longer rests on unanimous consent of its subjects.