Now you are just asserting things randomly that are false becuase you can't come up with a good argument Sorry! This is just "i don't agree with the collective's decision making process, and don't want to have to abide by it, or have to remove myself from it".

Again, the document you refuse to consent to is literally the only thing granting you the benefit of being here.

No. The document doesn't grant me the right to life. It doesn't grant me the right to own property. Everyone has natural rights. These are described in the declaration of independence and other documents.

You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.

Your right to own property is a textbook example of the social contract at play, because without that contract your "right" extends exactly as far as your personal ability to prevent me from taking it.

I have no contract with everyone. I cant recruit someone from other side of the country to prevent you from taking it.

I have to use my social/economic power. And yes I am happy to "pay taxes" to them. Because I need them but not to a welfare/UBI-addict who just takes.

And whats up with assumption that everyone will steal from everyone all the time if it were not for Govt ?

The history of the world, from feudalism to chattel slavery to honor societies to colonialism.

Whether or not you personally agree to the social contract, so long as you own property or have personal integrity protected in any way by the functions of a state, you are a beneficiary of the social contract. In its absence, you have rights solely to the extent that the strength of your own limbs can ensure them.

As I said, I am dependent on others. But the others != citizens of a nation. Its a very small subset. And for the service I am happy to pay as humans have been paying since invention of society.

I'm not seeing where it is we disagree.

We disagree on size of state. The flexibility/unhappiness of the social contract increases with size of state. The consent/absense-of-it is easier to indicate as size decreases.

I wasn't making an argument about the size of the state.

Usually people support taxes/megastates/state-as-a-solution-for-everything in bundle. My bad if thats not the case here.

You're lucky that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution, otherwise you'd have to consent to the idea that those rights are endowed by the Creator :)

Why do you have the right to ownership of things? I personally don't see the difference between the right of taxation, and the right of ownership. Both are constructs created by our laws, I believe.

There are societies with neither taxation, or the idea of individual ownership of belongings.

>The document doesn't grant me the right to life.

Nothing does. You don't have an objective right to life.

>Everyone has natural rights.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

Natural right implies that it is a objective right, something that can be reasoned to be always true no matter the mindset of those who reason.

Human rights or just about all rights we have are subjective, we made them up.

And yes, that includes all basic human rights. Your right not to be violently murdered is at it's essence a subjective notion that you don't want to be murdered above all.

It's true that some documents have documented these rights, notably the declaration of independence and some other similar. But that doesn't change the subjectivity of these documents either.

>You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room.

Again, this is entirely subjective. The other two people in the room might massively disagree and argue that since their are in the majority, they have every right to do what they want with you and your property.

It entirely depends on the moral and ethical framework used by those in the room.

For some, it might be fully ethical to murder you and practice their cannibalism a bit.

>The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.

Which is just as subjective.

Most people in the US seem to agree that the moral framework they have constructed is beneficial to them and that a majority rule is sufficiently moral and ethical to ignore the complaints of the few.

You can whine about it all day but it doesn't change that the majority believes that a majority can rule (which is an entirely subjective notion).

Your parents consented for you. They were your legal guardians until your age of majority (or emancipation) and had the right to consent on your behalf. You don't need to like that fact for it to be true.

You are free, now, presumably as an adult, to revoke your consent and citizenship. We won't stop you.