One concept often mentioned but not discussed is unanimous consent. It seems to be taken for granted every person on the continent will consent to be governed under a newly proposed state--conveniently doing so in large blocs such as, say, the current Eastern United States.
I think we all know that's a pipe dream. The property tax thread proves so. There are too many strong-minded and independent individuals for unanimous consent to occur in any large area, no matter how tight the legal language of the new system.
My question is this: what happens when un-consenting individuals are in the minority, inconveniently living in a convenient urban/suburban bloc of a hypothetical 100:1 consenters to non-consenters ratio?
One thought I've had is more about continuing consent: what about the original consenters' children, and their children, and on down through the generations? By being born in the US, I'm automatically a citizen, but was never given the opportunity to agree to subjection by its laws and government. I can just forget about opting out--if I try, I get to go live in the big house with the rest of the "criminals". Even if there is unanimous consent, in order to give all people at least the same freedoms the original consenters had, it seems there must be some way to be sure that those who are born under a regime (or even those who just change their minds) are allowed the opportunity to opt out without having their rights--including the right of property--proscribed. Why should there be a tyranny of original consenters--the parents limiting their children's freedoms permanently?
The right to secession is a topic often avoided, because of its politically charged history in this country, and the danger inherent to the PTB in such an action. (I have a feeling that if they allowed secession, there would be large sections of the most highly productive parts of most countries that would opt out at first opportunity.) If once you're in you can't get out, how is that different from the Mafia?
Sounds like Atlas Shrugged, where John Galt and the gang went off to get away from Wesley Mouche and the collectiveists. There are more John Galts around than the PTB will like to believe. But - where to go? How will this be resolved?
It seems as though I once read that one of the reasons that Poland had been invaded so many times was that for the government to act it took the unanimous consent of the council of Barons (>500 strong). Since it didn't happen...the age old question has come up,"Who hasn't invaded Poland?" Perhaps unanimous is not realistic?
Though unanimous consent is impractical, it would severely limit enactment of legislation. This often would be a positive element in a democracy.
Remember that today's democracies often rule as party dictatorships garnering far less than 50% of the popular vote. Canada, Britain, and even the US have had the "third party effect" affect outcomes, putting popular "losers" into "majority" governments.
In some ways you can look upon a democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. In the rawest form, this is not a good thing ...for all concerned.
At first glance this is almost gordian knot of a problem, but just as Alexander the Great cut through the knot, there is a solution here. Tie a sunset clause to any legislation unless it is unanimously passed. The slimmer the majority, the shorter the period that the law has effect.
In a way this automatically provides any new law with a probationary period, and creates a jeopardy for any legislation that is not fair. Enactment of a bad law will stir up condemnation and ensure that the legislation gets defeated the next time around. Good laws, on the other hand, would have an increased level of support, while offering a chance to fine tune legislation iteratively.
Such sunset clauses should be considered for executive orders as well.
I think you've missed the point that Unanimous consent only means that all who are bound by the covenant are those who have consented. Much like how not all States had ratified the Constitution at first, so only those that had were bound by it. The others retained their sovereignty.
Also, among citizens who have consented, I don't think it would require a unanimous decision to mobilize the military to defend the country under Mr. Skousen's plan. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.