[Discuss] An observation

[Samuel Knowlton]

>> As ridiculous as it is, it is essentially true. You are using annotation 
>> in your definition of consent. They may not willingly consent, but by 
>> doing nothing, they do consent de facto.

It is ridiculous because the cited political theory -- popular sovereignty 
(again, a late 17th century idea) -- is centered on the notion of "consent 
of the governed."

Whether or not serfs, who had no means to successfully oppose noble rule for 
the majority of the middle ages, tacitly "consent" to their status on 
account of choosing that over certain death has no bearing on whether 
popular sovereignty was present in the middle ages -- a question that has 
nothing to do with anything I'm talking about and that is absurd besides. It 
would be harder to find a time in history where popular sovereignty is less 
present.

Popular sovereignty is an active philosophy that requires active choice and 
participation. The question of what, exactly, entails consent to government 
is academic, irrelevant, and beyond the scope of both my original post and 
the entire point of this thread. It is mis-applied to this topic and serves 
no other purpose but to disguise an IC justification for present game 
mechanics  in the trappings of historical theory.