Over at the Princeton University Press blog, I have a post today dispelling the popular myth that democracy rests on the consent of the governed. I don’t think the fact that democracy (or any other form of government) is non-consensual is sufficient to show it’s not justified. Still, the idea that democracy is special because it’s consensual is, upon inspection, false.

In Against Democracy, forthcoming from Princeton University Press in 2016, I’ll take down about 16 or so arguments which purport to show that democracy is intrinsically just. This–the “democracy is consensual” thesis–is the weakest of them, but the most popular among laypeople.

Excerpt:

Recently, I purchased a Marshall JVM amplifier from a dealer. It was an archetypical consensual transaction. It had each of the following features:

A.       I performed an act that signified my consent. In this case, I ordered the amplifier. The outcome—that I lost money but gained a JVM—would not have occurred but for my performing the act that signified consent.

B.       I was not forced to perform that act—I had a reasonable way to avoid doing it.

C.       Had I explicitly said, “I refuse to buy a Marshall JVM at that price!” the exchange never would have taken place.

D.       The dealer was not entitled to take my money unless it sent me the amplifier—it had to hold up its end of the bargain.

Now, imagine that any one of these conditions didn’t happen. Suppose, instead of A, that the dealer just extracted money from my bank account and sent me the amp, even though I’d never placed an order. In that case, that would be strange kind of theft. The dealer would have taken my money without my consent. Suppose, instead of B, the dealer (or someone else) had said, “Buy this amp or I’ll murder you.” In that case, we still wouldn’t call it consensual—it would be a weird form of theft. Suppose, instead of C, I tell the dealer, “I absolutely refuse to buy a JVM!,” but the dealer just sent it to me anyways. In that case, it would have been like it had given me a gift without my consent. If they then sent me a bill, I wouldn’t have any duty to pay it, since I’d told them I didn’t want to buy the amp. Suppose, instead of D, the dealer takes my money but never sends the amp. In that case, it would be fraud. In each of these cases, the transaction would not be consensual.

In the remainder of the piece, I ask, does my relationship to my democratic government have any of these features that are needed for consent? Answer: Nope.

UPDATE: Some of the guitar geeks who read this might object, “The Marshall JVM sucks! What’s wrong with you?” I admit I agreed with that until recently. I think the problem with the JVM is that it sounds bad with the standard 1960A cab. Running though my EVH cab, it’s glorious.