> And what if we do not consent? I certainly don't, and yet I have no where to go. You call it freedom of association, I call it compliance under the threat of imprisonment.
Out of curiosity, how much that is afforded you by the existence and operations of a state--be it a member state or the federal state--can you look at and honestly say you both rely on and utilize, despite these ideals you espouse? Of that which the state provides in the course of fulfilling its duties to its citizens, and in its pursuit of the ideals of those whom its citizens elect to represent them, how much do you diligently deny yourself and decline to enjoy in the interest of remaining true to your ideals?
You say you do not consent, and I'm quite curious as to how diligently you live your life according to this principle.
Let's imagine you are faced with a decision to diligently stay off all state-funded roadways, or to use them instead. If you use them, do you deny that this provides a tacit consent to the social, political, and moral obligations that are inherent in funding these roadways? Do you argue that there is some social, political, or moral justification for using the common roadways freely, while also arguing there is justification for refusing to submit to funding them?
Alternatively, let's imagine some tragic accident befalls you, resulting in a need to seek medical care. Do you live out your refusal of consent of the obligations of citizenship and likewise resign yourself to not seek out medical care? You will likely have to travel to the hospital, and perhaps even use the state roadways that connect to it, perhaps even in an emergency vehicle that is funded by the state. If you truly deny that you consent to the authority of the state and the obligations of citizenship, then you obviously must deny yourself use of these state-provided things, yes? Surely you wouldn't argue that a person would be in the right to take advantage of these things provided by the state, and then, when the bill comes due, claim you have not consented, would you?
Because if, even in these simplest of scenarios, one denies that one created for oneself source(s) of obligation and tacit consent, then that person is just making it clear s/he desires to be an asshole, who wants the world to operate on his/her terms. That kind of person wants to freely enjoy the benefits of the state's operations, without being bothered to help foot the bill when able. (I am very much ignoring, for the sake of a simplistic dialogue, leaving out the condition of being unable to help shoulder the financial burden).
---
You present this idea of a "place where free people can go to pursue actual free-association through peaceful means". In what way can you explain this to be a free-association that is more real than the free association people operate under as citizens of a liberal-democratic state that guarantees a legitimate level of freedom, justice, and equality? Do you deny this other place you dream of would be yet another polity, yet another state? Are you simply not happy with the selection of liberal-democratic states that exist in the world, all trying in their own way to obtain the ideals of liberty, equality, justice, and a good life for their peoples? Because you are most certainly free to renounce your citizenship and pursue life elsewhere, are you not? I mean, you appear to be advancing a very hard-line notion of being actually free. And, as far as I know, there is no threat of imprisonment that prevents you from renouncing your citizenship. Sure, there are some nasty and punitive financial obligations of doing so in the US, but you won't be imprisoned. So, at least you've got that going for you.
And what if we do not consent? I certainly don't, and yet I have no where to go. You call it freedom of association, I call it compliance under the threat of imprisonment.
Make no mistake about it, you can use fancy words and ideas to make it noble. However, if you choose to gloss over those that do no consent to your wonderful little 'union' of 'domestic tranquility' then you are not at all better than the feudal kings/lords that you use as a counter-example to democracy.
You know what was the big thing about the Feudal system? Absolute ownership of all land by kings/lords, where the peasants had to rent it by virtue of being born on the land. Oh so very analogous to what we have now where people have very little choice but to live in the state that they are born with. There is simply no alternative, no place where free people can go to pursue actual free-association through peaceful means. You just have to replace 'lords/kings' with 'state/government' and you quickly see the picture.
But of course, I am "free". I am free to move to Somalia, apparently. Either that, or more to another King/Lords piece of land.