Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex, Rex,” q. 8
Rutherford continues to defend his claim that the power of government resides virtually, even if not formally, in the people. Of particular note in this chapter is his thought experiment of “a community transplanted to India, or any place of the world not before inhabited.” According to Rutherford, such a community would have “a perfect liberty to choose either a monarchy, or a democracy, or an aristocracy; for though nature may incline them to government in general, yet are they not naturally determined to anyone of those three more than another” (89). In like manner, he says, the people of Israel had the free will to choose their form of government in favor of a king as the nations had, and therefore had the active power to bring this about and not merely a “passive inclination” to be governed.
Rutherford entertains the objection that, based on his views on man’s natural freedom, it would seem to follow that the descendants of those who first contracted to make a man a king would not be bound by that same covenant, but would have the same native right and liberty to appoint another king without breach of covenant. Rutherford denies that this is a consequence, stating that a lawful covenant made by fathers in regards to civil government, if it is not broken by the rulers, is also binding upon their children, though he also says that it cannot deprive the children of their natural liberty to choose the fittest man to be their king, a subject Rutherford promises to treat more fully later.
The Natural Law Libertarian 
This would apply in the case of either:
1. A patriarchal society in which the father held complete control over his children even though they had already attained adulthood, or,
2. The children are bound by the covenantal agreement between the father and the ruler ONLY until the children had reached the age of consent, at which point the children are no longer bound by the agreement.
In the case of the first, when the patriarch dies, as he will, then the children are no longer bound by his rule nor his agreements and can choose their own way. In the second, the age of consent will vary according to the individual child’s development and disposition unless the father and the ruler agree on a purely subjective age at which the child is then free to choose his own way, e.g., purchasing alcohol legally, etc. At any point, this so-called “age of consent” can be changed upon the agreement of both the father and the ruler, regardless of the desires and responsible development of the child.
For children who do not want to be bound by their father’s covenantal agreement with the rulers, the way of escape is seen in this clause, “…if it is not broken by the rulers…” It is certain that the rulers WILL break the terms of the agreement in some way or another. It is inevitable that rulers will transgress since they are sinful human beings and not perfect. Therefore the children (and the father himself) are no longer bound by it and are free to choose another path.
I much prefer Spooner.
“…either that the separate, individual consent of every man, who is required to aid, in any way, in supporting the government, is necessary, or that the consent of no one is necessary…if a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it.” — Lysander Spooner, No Treason #1
LikeLike