The Rule of Consent
Make it make sense, if you can.
With consent, it is lovemaking.
Without consent, it is rape.
With consent, it is a sparring match in a karate dojo.
Without consent, it is assault.
With consent, it is borrowing your cordless drill.
Without consent, it is theft.
The Rule of Consent is so clear to all human beings that it does not even need to be explicitly stated as a formal rule. Everyone just knows it. And everyone knows when it has been violated. It is a foundational moral truth.
Government subjects you to governance without your explicit consent.
Government takes your money without your explicit consent.
Government imposes force upon you without your explicit consent, even if you have not first imposed force upon them or anyone else.
So please explain the precise moral calculus by which something that is foundationally immoral is transmuted into something moral—or even just allowable—when a government does it.
Any discussion is welcome here. If you believe you can make it make sense, I want to hear it.
I challenge you to look this squarely in the face.
I challenge you to set aside a lifetime of indoctrination and millennia of cultural programing. Sweep it all away and really look at it.
See the white-hot logic. Feel your intuition. Listen to the song that nature is singing.
They are all telling you one thing. People who want to control and exploit you are telling you another.