No replies? Surely, the purpose of political philosophy is to identify interesting concepts, and define them in logical, legal and philosophical terms. I happen to think this an interesting idea worthy of definition - and I invite informed parties to help do so.

I suggest not throwing it around as a label. I don't want examples. I want to define the concept if it is not already defined in the cannon of political philosophy.

It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent.

Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning.

Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point!

It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent. Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning. — unenlightened

That is to speak of the nature of consent, certainly, but absent of the political context. Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds?

Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point! — fdrake

So you're saying that the manufacture of consent might have the implication that consent is stolen? Because, to a greater or lesser degree - all consent is manufactured. So defining the idea of stolen consent would be to determine when that manufacture was legitimate, and when not?

If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better.

If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better. — fdrake

I did propose an entirely hypothetical scenario above. Let me get that for you:

Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds? — karl stone