Everything you said applies to gang rape. Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals.

>Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard.

A subjective and indefensible view point, as far as I'm concerned.

>If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals.

As far as "social contract theorists" are concerned their system is right/just within it's own bounds, just as yours is only right/just within it's own bounds.

There is no moral gold standard just as there is no universally just government.

The Social Contract works because it defines that a majority of people can give consent for others to participate in it. This is purely subjective and is only an operating principle if the Social Contract exists.

Once you step out of the Social Contract, it no longer applies and nobody can give consent you into participating.

Now let's step back for a minute.

What you're attempting here is saying that under the moral framework A, the actions taken with justification moral framework B are unjust.

This is not correct. It's similar to taking a mathematical system that lacks addition and then complain that another system with addition does not work correctly because it has addition. (Reverse lack/has if you want, it's irrelevant)

The "social contract theorists" justify their actions under the social contract which allows them to give consent via majority instead of unanimity, while you want a system that defines the consent to said contract via unanimity.

Both options are fine but you cannot simply say the other side is wrong.

edit:

I might also add that even you continue to utilize a social contract; the contract of consent via unanimity.

Which means that everyone agrees to respect the consent of everyone else. This is not a objective right that you somehow magically have, it's something you say you have.

That only works as long as everyone agrees but if one person says "I don't want everyone to respect my consent" your social contract violates itself.

Consent doesn't 51% of people get to decide for 100% of people what to do. Majority-rule does not make state action consensual. Your politics is shallow and inhuman.

That's a sub form of democracy called Majoritarianism.

lots of decision making needs higher standards, often watered down later

Conviction for Murder 12 unanimous peers - watered down to 11 of 12 in some places

Constitutional changes - 2/3 majority required in many jurisdictions

As a side note this is why the Brexit result was so devastating, the brexit side won by only a little however the support for being governed by the EU was only 48% .... this needed to be 66% or more for EU rule to be truly accepted

Consent doesn't happen at anything but unanimous consent in a group. If you decide to vote, the decision to vote must be unanimous. There needs to be a consent on every individual level in order for consent to occur in the collective level. Otherwise a room of wolves can eat the sheep.

Play that out a little bit and tell us how you get a functioning government [or collective society over 100K people] as a result.

"I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please."

"I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold."

"I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house."

"I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons."

"I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."

That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.

I'm claiming that a unanimous consent ideal is utterly unworkable at the scale that even a city government needs to work at, let alone state or federal government.

If the argument against a mostly functional existing government is that "not everyone consented unanimously and willingly", I think the claim that to require such makes things less functional is an in-bounds claim. You can argue that I'm wrong, but you will have a hard time convincing me that my claim was non-responsive.

Not all things need consent. You don't need the consent of someone violating other people's rights to punish them. You don't need the consent of 100% of the citizenry to make a decision on how to expend public funds. You do need someone's consent to take private income from them. Income taxation is wrong for that reason.

Parents can't consent for their children. And claiming that you can leave is not a valid argument because it's not always true, and there's nowhere to go.

In practical terms and matters, parents make binding choices for their minor children every day. Where are my kids going to sleep tonight? Where I [and my wife] decide. What are my kids going to eat tonight? ...

You're right that it's not consent exactly, but I made a binding choice to have children and to raise them in America (and Massachusetts and Cambridge and in this house). I made that choice recognizing that that would subject them to the good and ill of those choices, including taxation, the federal and state laws, local ordinances, and whatever drafts, roof leaks, and other dangers this house might have.

That they were not personally consulted and did not personally consent that we drive on the right side of the road, that we use the USD as our currency, that we use center-tapped 240VAC, 60 Hz single-phase as the residential electrical standard is irrelevant in practical terms.