• karl stone
    711
    In the philosophy of politics, as "stolen consent"?

    i.e. political consent stolen from an electorate.
  • karl stone
    711
    No replies? Surely, the purpose of political philosophy is to identify interesting concepts, and define them in logical, legal and philosophical terms. I happen to think this an interesting idea worthy of definition - and I invite informed parties to help do so.

    I suggest not throwing it around as a label. I don't want examples. I want to define the concept if it is not already defined in the cannon of political philosophy.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent.

    Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning.
  • fdrake
    5.8k
    Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point!
  • karl stone
    711


    It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent. Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning.unenlightened

    That is to speak of the nature of consent, certainly, but absent of the political context. Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds?
  • karl stone
    711
    Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point!fdrake

    So you're saying that the manufacture of consent might have the implication that consent is stolen? Because, to a greater or lesser degree - all consent is manufactured. So defining the idea of stolen consent would be to determine when that manufacture was legitimate, and when not?
  • fdrake
    5.8k
    If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better.
  • karl stone
    711
    If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better.fdrake

    I did propose an entirely hypothetical scenario above. Let me get that for you:

    Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds?karl stone
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.