The Myth Of Implied Consent

“No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.”

—Lysander Spooner

How many of you have heard the noise that your bodily fluids belong to the government road pirates when they demand it if they suspect you of impaired driving? Somehow, they have managed to circumvent your self-ownership with legal mumbo jumbo and of course, intimidation.

I want to break this down simply.  If you did sign a form, then your local badged Orcs would have “express” written consent to chemically test you.  Most state codes ape the Federal statute and say that simply by driving on a highway in your state that you are “deemed” to have consented to have a blood or breath test.  That is, you never really consented so the State will “deem” you to have consented.

They will deem you doing so. Can you imagine purchasing or leasing any good or service and that is how you seek remuneration or warranty service if not expressly state but simply deemed. Coercion is the converse of consent, and no consent is needed to defend against invasions.

Lysander Spooner threw a grenade on this absurd idea of implied consent and blew it to hell.

“Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract.”

Implied legally means “it never actually happened.”

But the state needs to have implied consent because what sane human being would sign off on surrendering so much wealth and resources?

MORE