ConsentP is sort of a proxy for collective ConsentI, because it's not feasible to build a society where we check everyone's ConsentI. As it happens, the system we implement says "ConsentP is officially derived when the constitution says it is, and the majority is allowed to change that if their ConsentI changes / they think it's a good idea."

Fortunately, the majority also has a vested interest in the system being functional, so they don't necessarily change the constitution every time it rubs them the wrong way (and it's hard to change it, also, so it takes a lot of momentum and time for it to actually happen, giving everyone plenty of time to reconsider). In this case, it would be not in most peoples' interest to abolish taxation, because the country would immediately collapse.

I was only talking about the two terms to make it clear that the argument against that specific phrase was missing the point of the phrase entirely - inventing new words to clear up overloaded ones can be quite useful.