You're welcome to move to a non taxation government, or just to one where it is barely enforced
Are you are arguing that staying in a geographical area constitutes consent for whatever the state in control of it does?
No I'm saying that without the government you wouldn't be making this comment on the internet, in English, or even have had a roof over your head.
Nations are a way of making people proud of things that they did not do, and making people hate other people that they have never met.
I 100% do not rely on police or courts to protect my property - because they don't.
Even if you do that, the US will still tax you unless you also renounce your US citizenship. Which, incidentally, is not easy to do, and also requires paying a hefty fee (ie, "the tax you have to pay to get out of paying your tax").
Yeah, it's not really a valid argument, is it.
But saying "things that people have consented to in the past, that i have not, are not binding upon me, and therefore taxation is theft" makes no sense. The world existed before you were born. You can leave the country at any time.
> You can leave the country at any time.
You seem pretty confident. But you're wrong. There are countless barriers to exit, especially if you are poor. Even if I could leave, there is no viable stateless territory on which I can live.
Talk to your parents, and their parents, and their parents, who did. Like i said, this is pretty much only a valid argument until age of majority. But note: even before then, you are taking advantage of the contract, which is the essence of implied consent in every legal system.
". There are countless barriers to exit, especially if you are poor."
There literally are not. You may walk, all the way to a border, and exit, as many people have.
You may not be accepted elsewhere, nor may you have a good time, but that is different, and changes nothing about consent.
(remember that document you didn't consent to, that's the thing that tries to make it so you might have a good time here)
"Even if I could leave, there is no viable stateless territory on which I can live. " Nor does this change anything about consent either.
The fact that you want something does not mean that your inability to get it easily changes anything.
Nothing has ever been easy. You want a viable stateless territory, go make one, by force if necessary. Heck, you are complaining about lack of consent, go get people to consent to one. Suck it up.
Nothing in the above is a valid argument about you consenting or not, just an argument that "if i don't consent, life is tough."
To which the answer is: Yes, yes it is. That's why we created governments in the first place.
Instead, of course, we discover that parents in fact, sanely consent for children until those children are capable of consenting or not consenting for themselves.
We also discover the concept of implied consent, whereby people using the benefits of a contract have also consented to the burdens.
Can a parent consent for the child to have sex? Of course not. A parent can't sign their child's life into debt.
Parents can not consent for their children, especially when that consent entails being conscripted into military service, taxed, and being put in prison for possessing a plant.
Student loans aren't actually very far away from that. (Not everyone taking out a student loan is over 18 or the local age of majority, which I realize that you haven't personally consented to what that age of majority should be.)
I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this point.
You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is. You seem to think it is "individual consent of literally every member of the collective", instead it is "output of collective decision making process". You may want that decision making process to be "every member of collective says yes", but that's just one form of collective consent, and at least here, not the one agreed to.
and again, you have your chance to ratify or not ratify the agreements your forebearers have made. If you choose to ratify and adopt, you've consented. If you choose to leave, great, you haven't. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "i don't subscribe to the agreed collective decision making process but i want the benefits the collective have agreed to".
Collective consent is not a form of true consent. 51% of people in a room cannot decide what the other 49% have to do. That is tyranny, and it's ridiculous to think that the government even has the consent of the majority for half of the shit they do.
But you didn't consent to the contract. Choosing to stay in a country is not contenting to following any human-rights violating law the majority happens to pass. By your logic, any law implemented through the democratic process cannot be a human rights violation, as long as the citizens had an option to leave the country, since all citizens "consented to the contract" by choosing to stay in the country.
>You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is.
Terms like "collective consent" are double-speak, and mean exactly the opposite of what they imply. Other terms that fall in this category include "social justice", which blatantly violates justice, and "social contract", which is in no way a contract.