Many people are actually working towards the goal of a non-taxation (or "private") government to reach an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society. Many of the original proponents of bitcoin are following a path called "Agorism", which is a method to reach this goal by engaging in "grey" market activities such as buying and selling goods through a non-state-managed currency without paying taxes, to achieve a peaceful revolution, without having to physically move.

You perhaps should google out the meaning of the world utopia... and wishful thinking.

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”

You could say that in response to literally anything a government does. You're welcome to move to a non spying government, you're welcome to move to a non prohibitionist government, you're welcome to move to a non police brutality government, etc etc.

Are you are arguing that staying in a geographical area constitutes consent for whatever the state in control of it does?

> 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.

I don't understand. Human beings are capable of performing many tasks without the state. Including building roads and infrastructure. The government is just an entity made up of people. This idea that because the government does something now, it can't possibly be done any other way shows a limited line of thinking. People historically used this argument to justify many other forms of coercion once considered acceptable. It doesn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

The humans that comprise the current US government had no part in any of those things.

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.

Are you really denying that you're relying on the courts and police to – for example – protect your property?

Yes I am. Police/Courts works because people are non-aggressive. And when you do get in trouble, Police/Courts should be last in your list of things that will help.

Have you lived in an area with high rates of theft before? I have (parts of New Zealand) and IME the police really don't care.

I 100% do not rely on police or courts to protect my property - because they don't.

Using raverbashing's logic, it sounds like he is saying every American resident "consents" to everything that Bush/Obama has done and everything that Trump will do...

> You're welcome to move to a non taxation government, or just to one where it is barely enforced

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").

You're welcome to move to North Korea if you love the state so much.

Yeah, it's not really a valid argument, is it.

Actually, it is. You choose to live in a country that has a constitution. You abide by that constitution. Like any sane government, you can change that constitution. That's "consent of the governed".

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.

I didn't choose to be born in this country. I never gave my consent.

> 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.

"I didn't choose to be born in this country. I never gave my consent. "

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.

So no one can complain about their government violating their human rights, because they are capable of moving?

You can complain of course, for anything you think is a violation of whatever. You can vote to change it. As long as the consensus decision making process exists, is being followed, and you are still taking advantage of the benefits of the contract, you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract. You even have a way out.

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".

> You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is

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.

>you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract.

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.

Ironically, I am a statist too. I believe a state has a rightful place in society, in managing the commons, and expending its revenue on public goods. What I don't believe a state has a right to do is violate human rights, in imprisoning people for engaging in some voluntary action or interaction by and between consenting adults, or for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.

Parents can't consent for their children.

No human society in the history of human society has claimed this, because it's ridiculously stupid. If you want to claim this, okay. Great, parents can't consent for their children. Since the document you don't consent to is the only thing that makes it illegal for me to murder you, ..., it's now okay to go out and murder every child, because they haven't explicitly consented.

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.

No. It's not okay, because the children did not consent to be murdered.

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.

You should re-read Hobbes. Outside the social contract we live in the natural state of man, where our rights are to do whatever we think necessary to ensure our well-being, no matter the consequences to anyone else. Without a state, from where do you derive the right not to be murdered? The strength of your own limbs, and little else.

> A parent can't sign their child's life into debt.

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.)

What are you talking about? I consent to things for my children all the time. My son had elective surgery at ~18 months imposed on him without his consent, that would have been potentially criminal to do to an adult.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this point.