Consent must be given, it is never assumed

So there I was, thinking about the logic of the title statement. If a door to a house is open, does that mean you have consent to enter it? If a car boot is open, does that automatically mean you can help yourself to whatever is in it?

Of course not. This is one of the foundational pillars of a private property based society (i.e, a free society). Consent must be given. Now it should come as no surprise that the ever growing state seems to think it is above this basic rule (although nobody gave them consent to it). This little fact on its own should convince any and everyone that a revolution is needed. In a democracy the consent of the majority can override that of the minority. The truth is, there is no majority or minority. These are collectivist conveniences. There are only individuals. Only in a totalitarian, Marxist-style system can anyone (or group) demand the stripping of private property from another. Perfect for the ‘abolish private property’ mantra of collectivist ideologies such as socialism, communism, feminism and environmentalism.

I am about to opt out of this NHS corporate data mining project, called Summary Care Records. I have to opt out, because apparently the state was already decided that I want to opt in. They didn’t ask me obviously. Just like they didn’t ask me about bailing out banks and charging me the bill (illegal), going to war in the Middle East (illegal) and so on.

Consent is important, so are ‘rights’. They, like sunlight from the sun, are consequences of ownership. Simply put, you only have rights (consent is one) over things you own (such as yourself). Things you don’t own you have no rights over.

Simple isn’t it.

I don’t have the legal right to give you consent to enter someone else’s home and start eating out their fridge, any more than I can’t give you consent to have sex with that girl over there.

This applies to absolutely everyone. No one is exempt. It is the Great Equaliser. Socialist constructs like The Human Rights Act are not only disruptive to this logic, it is illegal (I’ll deal with this in another post). We are all equal in our rights over our own property and equally powerless over anyone else’s. Society, (from the beggar all the way up to the government) is composed of individuals. ‘Government’ doesn’t exist as a real thing, it is a virtual object that describes a group of individuals, nothing more. As such, the government should have no rights to assume consent of your property (your medical data, your organs or whatever).

They can’t do this because they don’t own you, right? I mean, if they did then you would be a slave in every meaning of the word. If they owned you, they would be able take money directly out of your pay check before you even get it. They could fine you arbitrarily, stop you from gathering as free people and protesting, ignore you when you actively reject government proposals, sell your private data to corporations, shoot you in the head because you ‘don’t look right’, pass laws purely for the purpose of taking more of your money, call you all racists and bigots for asking questions about changes in your local area, they can even sign you up to legal contracts so foreigners can tell you how you live your life and charge you hundreds of billions while they do it and even give voting rights to people who aren’t British. They could take the currency you have to use as payment for the use of your property (body) for production (provision of goods and services) and deliberately devalue it. They could borrow money from private banks that charge interest and demand you pay it.

Wait a minute…