> Well, I personally haven't consented to socializing the cost of anything.

This is a strange take. If you had to "consent" to laws there would be utter chaos. The places where you can pick and choose which laws apply to you have no real laws. And all of those places are dangerous and destitute. That's why laws are decided by the majority, there will always be dissenters for every law out there. Some harmless, but others that want to pillage, burn things down, and worse.

There will always be laws that you don't like, unless there's no laws at all.

Here we arrive at the concept of negative and positive rights. You don't have to consent to be subject to laws that bar you from interfering with others. You should have to consent before being forced to provide others with goods and services on the benefit of your labour.

This still doesn't make any sense. Every single government service provided services to people besides you. You're essentially saying there should be no government.

The government plows the streets. Provides police and fire service. Makes sure street lights and sidewalks exist. Handles deeds for property. Handles court cases. If you had to "consent" to all these services providing benefits to other people the entire government would cease to exist.

"I have to consent to anything that doesn't directly benefit me" means a ton of things aren't even going to exist when you actually need them.

I think the deal with feedback loops is that the elements of the loop are mutually causal, which is what makes them feedback loops at all.

Which one of the causes was first in history seems academic and immaterial if we're at t>0 and wanting to devise a strategy to slow it down or stop it.

It's called tyranny of the majority and happens in countries with a weak constitution.

You are consenting by participating in that society.