Yes, Sir, No, Sir, I will obey, Sir

The News
The British Government have recently unveiled their plans to give members of the Armed Forces 'a fast-track route into teaching', essentially giving retired veterans the opportunity to turn their hand to education even if they do not possess a university degree.

My Take
While many have objected to the British arrangement on the grounds that it devalues the education system and insults current teaching professionals, I would argue that this is one of the least-concerning aspects about this proposition. I think a far more terrifying facet is the prospect of placing our next generation in the thrall of excessively violent and nationalist puppets.

Advocates insist that the military ethos of quality leadership, discipline and obedience is ideally transferable to the classroom, and would instil in the next generation similar values of citizenship. However, given that the primary purpose of education is to open the minds of the young, to encourage them to think for themselves, and to equip them with the tools to do so in later life, the prospect of ex-military personnel in the classroom is disturbing to say the least. It is all too apparent how their narrow-minded dogma would stunt the growth of a young person's intellect and stifle their ability to mature.

Of course, it is also easy to see why the Government would want values such as unquestioning obedience, civil discipline and societal sacrifice drummed into the young and impressionable. To have the obedience of the next generation, to have them all united behind one banner (theirs) would effectively silence opposition and greatly improve the ability of the Government to act unilaterally and dictatorially. Worryingly, this is clearly the intention of this fast-track plan. In the Armed Forces there is a reluctance, a squeamishness if you will, to criticise the Government. Similarly, outside the Armed Forces, there is squeamishness to criticise the men and women who sacrifice for our 'protection'. If the next generation were to be raised by such squeamish people, we would reach a situation where those in power need never fear such criticism.

If this is not enough to convince you of the proposal's deficiencies then just bear in mind that it is an adoption of a plan already  implemented in America, (with the difference that across the pond over 99% of participants already had a degree) therefore aligning us worryingly closely with the Yanks 'unthinking glorification' of their Armed Forces.

And we all know how well that's working out for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

The Age of Consent (For Meg)

By consent, here I mean the consenting of individuals to live in a society. Namely their consenting to offer up some of their liberties and power to a centralised government in return for a perceived increase in security and order.

However, my point is also linked to the 'age of consent' in the more ubiquitous sense; as that age at which one is legally allowed to engage in sexual activity.

But first let's make a distinction between two theories of how a people give consent to their rulers... the distinction between explicit and tacit consent.

Explicit consent is the everyday conceptualisation of consent, when someone has a clear choice and chooses to allow a particular course of action. For example, I explicitly consented to allow someone to go ahead of me in the supermarket queue this morning.

Tacit consent is in actuality the more pervasive form of consent, and refers to when someone upholds a norm or convention merely by failing to oppose it. For example I tacitly consent to being governed by Her Majesty because I haven't (yet) taken up arms against her/ left the country.

And this is where the recent case of Megan Stammers comes in...

One of the key arguments made by Locke is that the legitimacy of a Government rests upon the people giving their consent to be ruled. He postulates that this can come in the form of tacit consent, but only if there is the feasible potential ability of any individual to withdraw their consent... Without such a measure then the government becomes a totalitarian dictatorship as there is no alternative offered...

He argues that the two methods of withdrawing one's tacit consent are to a) express explicit discontent by overthrowing the government, whether by ballot or bullet, or b) leaving the jurisdiction of said government...

This is exactly what Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest did. They were born into the subjection of a government over which they had no part in creating or shaping and they therefore chose to withdraw their consent due to their inability to live under the laws created by that government. Explicitly they took issue with the law defining the 'age of consent' and therefore emigrated to France where they expected to live under a law more preferable to themselves.

Now this is exactly how Locke says tacit consent should work. If one doesn't like a law they should work to repeal it, or leave its jurisdiction. They ought not be held accountable under that law if they do not recognise its authority and are actively seeking to leave the society that it governs. Any attempt by the British government to prosecute either of them under the law they reject is simply demonstrating that the theory of 'tacit consent' is a lie, and proving that this government is unlimited, unaccountable and illegitimate... a terrifying prospect...