As an anarchist and someone that does not consent to be governed by the US government I regularly hear people tell me that I consent to be governed because I haven’t taken it on myself to leave or because I use public roads, sidewalks, police, fire protection or benefit from military protection. What they fail to recognize is that when the government has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services and has made illegal all other possible avenues there is little choice but to use the services the government provides and be member of the governmental organization.
Sometimes what people like to say is that because you have a birth certificate or because you have decided to immigrate here you have consented to be governed, but what they fail to understand is that in neither case is it a valid establishment of consent since in the former case the agreement is made by your parents, and in the later case, you are coerced to become a citizen or face legal punishment. Furthermore, you can not simply leave and not join another government organization as the government you had no choice but to be member of won’t allow you to denounce your citizenship without you having membership from another governmental organization. Under such terms any future agreement with the new governmental organization is to be assumed to be made under distress and thus can not be seen as binding to the party that signed it.
Then of course we have much less thought through arguments, like, well, you’re party to the social contract, or it’s in our nature to form into groups.
In the case of the social contract the argument is that by joining a society you have consented to some set of common rules, and thus you are morally bound to obey them. There has been no contract in history known as the social contract and at no point has any terms of this contract been presented or any choice of agreement or disagreement been offered to anyone. Furthermore, people do no choose where they are born or what societies they are born into much like they don't choose who their families are or if they are going to be born with ten fingers and ten toes. What actually happens is that the government forces anyone in their area since birth to follow their rules and punishes them accordingly if they break them.
Finally we reach the last argument that states it is in our nature to form into groups and establish rules in which we are to follow. The only way this argument could be a valid establishment of consent is if it was done by agreement, but in truth it is just another way to make the social contract argument. It is stating much like the social contract argument that because you are part of what has been determined society you have agreed to the rules, and again like the social contract argument assumes this was done by choice, not things outside of your control and not consented to like being born into the society. What many times is argued by those that enjoy the argument is that because the rules were already established by those that agreed to them (the people didn’t agree to them in the US), that you too agree to them because you are part of the same society. It is of course an argument that is absurd on it’s face as a persons agreement is only their own and would die with them.
So I ask you, do you believe people consent to be governed by just living in the US?
