Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

The philosophical basis for the supremacy of the State over self-sovereignty

This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in the era of the presumed injustice of any law policing self-regarding acts, it is worthwhile to remember why the government has legitimized power. The glib question "what social contract did I sign" provokes the following response.

Anyone is king in their own home. If I enter private property, my legal ability to remain there is entirely at the pleasure of the owner. Should the owner demand, I must either obey any arbitrary strictures the owner feels like making, or must leave posthaste. The owner of some property can develop rules, and announce that any who enter his land must obey them, or be subject to a penalty he sets. Should I enter his land, I am subject to those decrees, and failing them, those penalties. (Think about the legality of one's car being towed if you park it in a store's parking lot.) The act of entering the property qualifies as consent to those rules and their amercements.

Think of property rights as a long-term lease from the government, to whom all the citizens of the "United States That Was" deeded all their land in a moment as close to a unary Social Contract Signing as is possible. All of the individuals who became US Citizens after that moment consented (either directly or by proxy through empowered agents (provincial legislatures)) to the framework for the management of the property known as the United States. (the management subsequently acquired more properties via contract with their owners)

You didn't sign it, but you don't have to; the Government exists as the ultimate owner of property. Residence and citizenship are not mandatory, but to reside here, and be on Gov't land, is to consent to be forced to obey. The government can be considered akin to a country club; its is owned and managed by its current members, who can enter and leave freely (well entering is harder in both) and elect governors to the club. The club owns
everything, and one's only recourse if one doesn't like the club is to, well, find another club. (Life without membership in a club, too horrible to contemplate ;-) )

This view does mean any governmental action is legitimate - or would be if the charter of the club hadn't set out the acceptable domain for the membership to regulate. Insofar as the club membership chose to bind their hands, and created institutions to propagate rules, ensure those rules remained within the permissible domain, and then were enforced, any action consistent with that charter need no other justification other than to be the will of the membership, or their representatives.

I realize many of the positions I personally hold conflict with this view; perhaps then I feel this charter is too loose, leaves too much power to the membership, and perhaps was too sloppily written.