CONSENSUS consists of a network of people who all have similar opinions and have come to a decision to vote or assemble in large numbers to show solidarity. There can be no “perfect” consensus as opinions vary too greatly, but we can get the best consensus if everyone comprehends the basic facts which set the stage for a mutual platform.
If political police shut down a ski hill, which also entails closing the business of the man who owns the hill because the city council says it is too dangerous, then people ought to be furious for the business owner as opposed to debating weather or not the ski hill is dangerous. If political police arrest someone for selling incandescent lightbulbs(which are actually illegal in Canada), then people ought to be concerned that a man has has been caged for something that he has done within common/private law jurisdiction(i.e. a private transaction between two people). People, in this example, should spread the sentiment that imprisoning a man for contributing to society is immoral and unjust as there is no victim. If political police arrest farmers for selling their own wheat across the border because a corrupt commission says so(which actually happened to Albertan wheat farmers back in 2002), then the people ought to be outraged that the farmers have been caged for contributing to society as opposed to having a superstitious reverence for the law just because it is called the law. If political police arrest a man for defending his family by shooting violent nd armed robbers(which actually happened to Cameron Gardiner of Collingwood, Ontario), then people ought to be outraged at the fact that a man has been caged for exercising his right to self defense. Relevant consensus is based on the fact that the benefits outweigh the perceived harm insofar that people do not cause direct harm to others.
Relevant consensus is also relevant in that it benefits the public-and if it benefits the public, it will also benefit the law enforcers as they are the public. It would be idiotic for a police officer or so-called “servant of the law” to arrest someone for using incandescent lightbulbs in the middle of a mass power outage, it would be grossly ungrateful for a police officer to arrest a man after the officer finds himself waking from unconsciousness on a life boat and upon thanking the captain for saving his life, he believes that the captain smells like weed and then zip-ties him and the entire crew who worked to save his miserable life.
Let us a imagine scenario where there is a power outage in winter and the police officer, who is not on duty and is just another resident like anyone else, goes across to the neighbors house because he is desperate for warmth. When he enters the house him and the neighbor talk and the neighbor explains that that he installed his own generator which was not approved by the electrification commission because there regulations are just a money grab(like most regulations). The neighbors innovation benefits the whole neighborhood as local residents join the off-duty officer to get warmth. If we assume that the off duty officer knows the commission-made “law” then he may be inclined to arrest the generous neighbor once full electrical power is restored-despite the fact that the innovation of the neighbor benefitted the community. It is in this contribution where we get a relevant consensus because the people who have enjoyed the fruits of an “illegally” owned and unregulated generator will realize the importance of de-regulation.
Police enforce trivial laws(such as arresting those who drive without a license even though the car is private property or arresting people for selling their own homemade beer without a liquor license) will themselves indulge in the same trivial “crimes” that they enforce. No policeman can cope without a beer(even during a prohibition), especially when he has to relieve himself of the guilt that haunts him after enforcing yet another heinous political order. No police officer will arrive without a gun to shoot a knife wielding man if he attacks him or her, but if you are an untrained shot which simply looked to defend his family from armed men, like Mr. Gardiner of Collingwood, Ontario did, then you will be shackled and caged. As it relates to self defense with a gun, why should the consensus who feels “uncomfortable” because their opinions have been chiseled out of the mainstream(state/taxpayer funded) media narrative which says that guns are bad? The uncomfortable consensus is the irrelevant consensus because they are not aligned with the facts as it relates to the statistical context of gun-related crime(i.e. the difference between gang culture and the culture of the law abiding).
As it relates to victimless crimes, consensus becomes irrelevant when a municipality or a province says that they are “sensitive” to their communities or that these laws are in place to make the populace happy. These arguments from consensus are fraudulent in that the lawmakers have shaped an irrelevant consensus because the crowd accepts these laws because they have been persuaded into fearing these crimes as opposed to foreseeing the effects of what may happen when these laws are enforced. For instance, people may think that an illicit drug law imprisons the violent and the unsavory, but when they see or hear that a teenage girl from a well off family has been shackled and waist-chained for the purposes of prisoner transport over a mere gram of “weed”, then it is clear that it is a perverse revenue builder which uses the rhetoric of corrupt politicians as its cloak.
A relevant consensus thus forms when people begin making arguments from efficacy which evaluate a law based on an impartial performance review which, in the case of drug laws, shows that there are more drugs in prison than on the outside. In-fact, drug laws inadvertently force drug users to adapt as “illegal” drugs can be made with ingredients which are not illegal in of themselves(i.e. industrial solvents). In short, drug laws give drug users skills in making drugs! The salubrious “Crown” and its allies in “law” making are quite brilliant indeed!
The irrelevant-relevant consensus distinction is absolutely irrelevant as it relates to national democracy in which people vote in what is always a two party race for a “new” federal government. This is absolutely irrelevant because people are voting for a thing that is apart of the same coin in terms of conflicts of interest and coercive power. With the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the carbon tax is constitutional without any evidence other than recycled rhetoric from the government, we can now confirm that the conflict of interests(i.e. convergence of political and corporate interests) is too immense for the Supreme Court to tear it down as they themselves may also have their finger in the pie. If the supreme court was defeated due to what takes place behind the scenes, then how is one lone man going to “stop” collusion on a mass scale? He simply will not. National democracy is merely a numbers game where people vote based on how appealing they find a parties political campaign and thus do not into account the irrelevant-relevant consensus distinction.