ieS7rpVU

I would probably choose the the opposite. My most likely state-actor adversary would be "my" government so I would prefer to not to make it easier for them to spy on me.

Inside their own borders as well. States are creatures of violence. They are created by violence and require continuous violence to remain in existence.

>The defining characteristic of a nation state is that it has a monopoly on violence within its borders.

That seem like a good reasons for people within US borders to prefer to be spied on by the Chinese government rather than the US government and for people within Chinese borders to prefer to be spied on by the US government rather than the Chinese government.

If I have to be spied on, I will choose whoever is less likely to subject me to violence.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Almost all of the elected members from the newly annexed areas are opposed to the annexation and introduce a bill to allow the 13 new states to secede from the US but the bill is overwhelmingly defeated by members of Congress from the other 50 states.

Does the US government in this scenario enjoy the consent of the governed?

If they do, imagine that the original US population was more split on the issue so that the secession bill would have passed with Canada divided into 13 states. However the pre-annexation Congress anticipated this and resolved to make Canada a single state that would consequently not have sufficient representation to pass the bill even with the support of opponents from some of the other 50 states.

Does the US government still enjoy the consent of the governed in the second scenario?

Ignoring the fact that many of the people assassinated by the US government where not US citizens and never set foot on anything the US government claimed as territory...

Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consenting but I also know that some other people support the government that purports to govern them. Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?

I wouldn't. Why can't you use banks that agree to follow rules you like and be monitored by people you trust while I can use banks that agree to follow rules I like and be monitored by people I trust?

There is nothing wrong with facilitating drug deals and there is not a shred of evidence to support the other allegation. An allegation from the US government means absolutely nothing to me.

It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.