Analyzing the "Trump is Not My President" Argument
Embedded in the "Not My President" statement is a complex philosophical concept and a major contradiction. As an anarchist, I agree with this statement, but I find fault with the sentiment it usually represents. Is it really a principled protest against an encroachment of liberty, or a whining complaint of a sore loser? Well, it's actually both...
Source: link
Argument from precedent
Appeals to tradition are irrelevant in rational discourse, but history can reasonably be used to cite precedent while building a case for why a right is recognized.
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is the right of the people to withdraw their consent when they believe government fails to represent them. This argument is built on he principle of self-ownership and the argument that a government's claim to authority requires consent to avoid being a trespass against natural rights.
While the US Civil War is sometimes presented as a counterargument, serious analysis shows that neither side in that conflict was interested in the rights of the people, and both sides were pursuing the interests of the political classes in the North and South while hiding their intent behind propaganda. History is filled with examples of secessions and independence movements.
Argument from individual rights
This brief post cannot possibly provide a comprehensive coverage of natural rights theory and all its attendant distinctions and arguments. In a broad sense, natural rights theory typically defines rights as "negative," meaning rather than creating an obligation to act, they define the sphere where another individual's action is a trespass. They are also reciprocal and universal, meaning they must apply equally to any two parties at any time and place. In short, if I do not have the authority to govern other people, and other people do not have the authority to govern me, I cannot rationally delegate such authority to anyone else. Anyone claiming such delegated authority bears the burden of proof to show it.
There is no evidence for representation. There is no agent/principal relationship between the government and the governed. Any such claims to such delegated authority are thus inherently usurpation, and cannot be supported by reason and evidence. As such, political authority is illegitimate. It is entirely rational for people to argue that Trump is not their president. It is also rational and consistent to say that Obama was not their president either. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr, Ronald Reagan, etc. can all be disavowed as legitimate presidents in a consistent application of this line of reasoning if the foundation principles are human action and self-ownership.
The Fault in the Protester's Claim
The typical protester's argument is not based in historical precedent or individual rights. Instead, it is a hypocritical complaint rooted in the desire to impose a different unwanted ruler upon others. It is absurd to argue that opposition to Obama was treason while simultaneously rejecting Trump.
Source: link
If you're concerned that the "wrong guy" could get power, maybe the root problem is the presumption that anyone has the authority to wield that kind of power?
Interesting one, upvoted - I just posted / shared an article about Trump and it seems reactions are not always coming from adult educated person, just one word comments - hate that no matter what opinion people have :-) and I am far from being a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Thanks for this @jacobtothe
Great article...very well presented and, of course, upvoted! People seem patently unwilling to let go of the false Left/Right dichotomy. It's Collectivism vs. Individualism, and it matters not which side of the "political spectrum" it comes. The Nazi/Soviet conflict is proof enough of that...ideologically their similarities vastly outweighed their differences. Like you said in so many words...The wrong guy is ALWAYS in power.
I think the founders of this country had the right idea when they attempted to strictly limit government power. However, any such attempts are bound to fail once people become too complacent. That's where we are today. The Constitution is great but a piece of paper by itself can't actually do anything. I think too few people appreciate just how brilliant Thomas Jefferson was in his time:
"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Jefferson though there would need to be armed rebellion from time to time to ensure liberty was maintained. I like to think it doesn't take that much but at the same time, lethargy certainly is the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
I think the founders were grossly mistaken when they believed the government could be restrained. Public Choice Economics describes the incentives of the political class to consolidate power and buy support with stolen money through subterfuge.
Armed rebellion is a risky measure, because government does two things very well: Violence and propaganda. Revolutions typically result in either the installation of a new corrupt government should the old regime lose, or a massive increase in tyranny when the existing government prevails.
Instead, I advocate individual secession. Use the underground economy, cryptocurrencies, and individual education. It doesn't produce instant results, but it builds a solid foundation for something better.
I don't think armed rebellion is ideal nor desirable except in the most extreme circumstances. Having said that, I do believe it is complacency that allows government to grow and expand its powers. The power of government can be restrained but only if a significant enough portion of the population are actually willing to restrain it. The founders of this country simply provided some of the tools. Propaganda only gets you so far and given the existence of the internet and the fact that government is so mistrusted I'm not sure how effective it really is. And the government certainly does violence well but there are certain limits on that violence before it becomes counterproductive. No government will ever create a utopia and neither will the lack of government. The question is what is the best path to take to get from where we are to something better?
Individual secession, as you describe it, is useful for getting around certain aspects of government power but at the end of the day, if government has enough power, that won't help you. I don't think it is a match for otherwise out of control government expansion of power without other checks.