Gregory Yates: thoughts, theses and collected theologies.

The standard argument against the rejection of arbitrary state ‘rules’ goes as follows:

1. The rules of Britain are clearly defined and concern the whole of Britain.

2. You live in Britain.

3. If you did not like the rules, you could just leave.

4. You have not left, so you must appreciate the rules. 

I’ll challenge two significant premises of this argument - the first being that we are expected to be aware of the ‘rules’ of this country and the second being the more general idea that these policies are reasonably entrenched within society. I will begin, naturally, with the first.

Consent implies knowledge. If a CEO of a particular business I have just been employed by for details for me, on my first day, the company policy - perhaps it is considered unprofessional to wear a brightly coloured shirt, among other things - and I agree to work according to these principles, then of course I have consented. My boss has a legitimate mandate to impose sanctions on me, providing I was aware of the punishments for transgressions in the first place. If I wear that ostentatious pink shirt, I can expect reprecussions. Nothing wrong with that. 

However, let us suppose that he murmured and mumbled parts of it; I asked him to speak up, but he largely ignored me. As a result, I know the vague outline of the policy, but the details escape me. Unbeknownst to poor I, wearing brown shoes is a gross violation of this corporation’s ethical code; when I wear them the next day, I am punished severely, more so than I could have possibly expected. I was aware that flamboyant clothing was generally off-limits, but not that brown shoes crossed the threshold of ‘unprofessional’! Far from it.

Now picture the government as this ambiguous CEO. The analogy (like all my carefully picked analogies!) stands up surprisingly well. The government, quite simply, has laid out a contract. By living in Britain, and working for the government - we pay taxes, which equates to financial labour, and are in return given law and order, foreign defence and economic regulation - we agree to take on company policy. Problem is, the terms and conditions laid out are difficult to comprehend. In the same way the dithering CEO mumbles certain parts of the company code, so does the government give us hazy, sometimes incredibly difficult to comprehend, details on the law. For example, I know that assault is illegal, but what about self-defence? I know I am allowed to defend myself, but what constitutes ‘reasonable’ force?

Obviously, I can go to look this up - but this is one issue among many that I would presume the vast majority of the population are blissfully unaware of. Nobody, save for perhaps the judiciary (and even they are unsure of certain aspects of law) could know every regulation involved with living in this country, especially given the incomprehensibility of many legal documents; some date back decades, even centuries. It is just not practical to ask a member of the public to memorise each and every law, but if they don’t, they find themselves at an ignorant loss. Perhaps if we did know the entirety of the British law, we would scoff and say: "I’m not agreeing to that!" and thus refuse to vote for any political party continuing this law at the time of a general election?

We probably never will. Again, it just isn’t feasible. The government’s mandate to impose their rules upon us seems to be little more than an extremely long contract, predominantly comprised of barely legible small-print.

If this is what passes for consent in government, I’ll stick with anarchy, thanks.