Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Direct Answer Wesley’s argument exposes that “consent” is often not the real basis of law, since most people don’t actively consent to laws; therefore political slogans built on consent can become inconsistent and can justify broad rejection of authority.

Support from Transcript:

• Wesley says if Parliament can’t tax due to lack of representation, “for the same reason it can make no laws to bind you,” showing the slogan’s logic leads to rejecting all authority.
• He argues that if taxation requires consent, then punishment would also: “neither can he be punished without it,” making the claim self-destructive.
• Wesley calls the foundation “absolutely false” that “every free man is governed only by laws to which he has consented.”
• He notes lawmaking is done “by delegation,” and “those who are not voters… stand by as idle and helpless spectators.”
• He adds even voters often are governed “against their own consent,” and we didn’t consent to laws “made before he was born,” so our consent is “purely passive.”
• People are “born… subjects of one state or another,” “born passively… consenting to the laws of that state.”