(“Waiting for Godot”…When Life Imitates Art)
Applying consent is to apply the risk of compliance. Non-compliance would seem to present the risk, but no. Applying consent “to” the governed requires creating compliance or, like Ted Cruz says, “winning the argument.”
While voters expect the numbers to naturally win the argument, thus mandating the terms of compliance, the terms are, nevertheless, formulated and applied to the voters in the form of positive law. The law then exists on command, not on demand–a mandate to buy health-care insurance, for example. The rent (the attributive value) is reversed, which causes what political scientists call “realignment.” Resisting perpetual realignment (novation of the risk) is like waiting for Godot. We expect it, but IT, with a hope that springs eternal, never comes on command.
Realignment begs the question. It always exists, demanding compliance, winning the argument by always begging the question, ad infinitum, existing the empty terms of an indefinite existence, creating the angst (the probable risk) of being compliant (coerced) without proper consent.
Abstract expression, like “Waiting for Godot,” demonstrate the dissonance of winning the argument by always begging the question. It’s an empty “being and nothingness”–always waiting for IT to happen, created by our own devices.
When life imitates art, created by our own devices (technologically pulled), what we are waiting for shows up (“being” naturally aligned) without having expected it.