9 votes

"Consent of the governed": a contradiction in terms (Larken Rose)

This post is an excerpt from Larken Rose's new book,The Most Dangerous Superstition Reprinted with permission of the author. (I would l♥ve to say that Larken "authorized" this reprint, but the whole thesis of his book is that "authority" is "the most dangerous superstition," and he'd likely hunt me down & carry on cranky. Great book.

"The Myth of Consent" (TMDS pp. 15-17)
There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled "consent" -- both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled "governing" -- one person controlling another. Since these two -- consent and governing -- are opposites, the concept of "consent of the governed" is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not "government"; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority, or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what "consent" means. It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed." Yet that is the basis of the cult of "democracy": the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not "consent of the governed"; it is forcible control of the governed, with the "consent" of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, "I agree to let you forcibly control me," the moment the controller must force the "controllee" to do something, there is obviously no longer "consent." Prior to that moment, there is no "governing" -- only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: "I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not."

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in "government" do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate "consent" where there is none, believers in "authority" add another, even more bizarre step to the mythology: the notion of "implied consent." The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is "agreeing" to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him,"By driving a car in this neighborhood on a Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car." One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else "agreeing" to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one's own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, "if you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke," or "You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off." It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an "owner" who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the "country" or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue, logically implies that everything in the "country" is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person's time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the "implied consent" theory means: that every "country" is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

UPDATE: I've posted a second excerpt from The Most Dangerous Superstition here on another thread.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anarchists...

that deny that society exists and that deny society has a mind of its own are intellectually boring, lazy and tiresome. :)

Society exists and if your philosophy ignores it or plays down its relevance and importance, then that philosophy will quickly fail when attempts are made to implement it...

*yawn*

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Expanding on the "The Myth of Consent" fallacy:

The term "Tyranny of the Majority" is often used to describe how in a democracy 51% can rule the other 49% without their consent. Since this site is dedicated to a man on the national stage, let's look at some statistics (notice the root "statist"... interesting...) from the 2008 presidential election (all figures rounded off to millions):

According to figures from the U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (a corporation registered with Dun & Bradstreet):

1. There were 225,000,000 men and women of "voting age" in America in 2008
2. Of those, 206,000,000 were United States Citizens
3. Of those, 146,000,000 (71% of #2) were registered voters
4. Of those, 131,000,000 (64% of #2) voted in that election
5. Of those, 63,000,000 voted for Obama (30% of #2, 28% of #1)

So what we have is not really a "Tyranny of the Majority" at all, but rather the attempted rule of over 70% of Americans by less than 30%. Looking at it this way only makes "The Myth of Consent" even more ridiculous.

Rose made your numbers irrelevant.

Some will claim that a majority, or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what "consent" means. It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed." Yet that is the basis of the cult of "democracy": the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not "consent of the governed"; it is forcible control of the governed, with the "consent" of a third party.

See, Vince, it doesn't MATTER whether you are governed by a minority or a majority. The only thing that matters is you are being governed without YOUR consent. No one can consent for you, except YOU. The principle here is not a matter of numbers; it's a fundamental moral issue.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Very inspiring and clear

Thanks for posting!

State does not mean what most think

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0634001.pdf

The definition of State, for purposes of section 6103, includes certain municipalities
meeting the criteria set forth in I.R.C. § 6103(b)(5).

"(B) includes assessment, collection, enforcement, litigation, publication, and statistical gathering functions under such laws, statutes, or conventions.
(5) State
(A) In general
The term “State” means—
(i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, "

To qualify as a State, a municipality
must (1) have a population of more than 250,000, (2) impose a tax on income or wages,
and (3) sign an agreement with the IRS regarding the use and disclosure of the
information provided. The City of Los Angeles, with a population of close to four million
in 2003, clearly satisfies the population requirement. The crux of the issue is whether
the City’s business registration tax meets the second requirement under I.R.C.
§ 6103(b)(5)(B) that the municipality impose a tax on income or wages.
The City of Los Angeles would have the IRS interpret I.R.C. § 6103(b)(5)(B)(ii) by
looking outside of the Code to 4 U.S.C. § 110(c). Section 110(c) of Title 4 of the U.S.
Code defines income tax broadly to include “any tax levied on, with respect to, or
measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts.” Under this broad definition,
the City’s business registration tax, which is calculated on a business’s gross receipts,
satisfies the definition of income tax.
The definition of income tax found in 4 U.S.C. § 110(c) is part of the “Buck Act” (4
U.S.C. §§ 105-110) (the “Act’), enacted in 1940. In the Act, Congress authorized state
and local governments to collect “income taxes” from individuals who work in a Federal
area. 4 U.S.C. § 106(a). A Federal area is defined as “any lands or premises held or
acquired by or for the use of the United States.” 4 U.S.C. § 110(e). The Buck Act was
passed for the limited purpose of “ensuring federal officers and employees who reside
or work within exclusive federal enclaves would be treated equally with those who
reside and work outside such areas.” S. Rep. No. 76-1625, at 3 (1940).

Now revisit 7701

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Each "State" is a municipality of the government IE DC

Tried to order this book

from the link that was posted but would not go thru on the ordering page. Not sure if it's on my end or not but if it gets fixed or others are successful let me know and I'll try again.
Thanks

Try again.

I tried the order page, and it seemed to be working okay, but I didn't take the final step of actually placing my order. If you got that far, and then nothing worked, please try contacting Larken directly. He'll want to know that his order page isn't working. You can email him: larken@larkenrose.com .

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Can't wait to read it!

On my way to Amazon right now. Thanks for the post.

No, wait! Buy the book direct from the author, save money.

Buy it direct from the author! Amazon doesn't sell the book directly yet. You would be buying from aftermarket sellers for about $12, plus shipping. If you buy it from Larken, he'll send it to you for $10, postage included. Follow the link up in the main post.

In fact, Larken will send you a copy of the book "on approval." If you promise to read it, he'll send you a copy, for NO money down. If it changes the way you see "government," you agree to send him $10. If it doesn't, you send the book back to him, owe him nothing. Details here, in the section titled "Game On!" If too many people respond to this, Larken may have to end the offer, but for now, I believe it's still good.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I think I DID buy from him directly...

or at least I tried to. I went to Amazon to read your reviews :) and his name was there as a brand new seller. He'll be keeping his money from me too. I'm already a big fan from watching one of his videos.

Sorry this has taken me so long to respond, but I'm still learning my way around the Daily Paul. After 3 years, I just now realized I could look up my old comments. What a concept....

One last thing, YOU could have a book out too. That Santa Claus/e post was awesome.

"Rights Are Santa Claus" update

I polished it up a little bit, and submitted it to Strike the Root e-zine. They just published it. http://www.strike-the-root.com/rights-are-santa-claus

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

No, you probably didn't

get the best price, if you purchased the book on the Amazon site. Larken sells the book on Amazon for $12 plus $3.99 shipping. But if you go to his own website and buy it there, it only costs $10, shipping included. If you buy multiple copies, you get even better prices. I pre-ordered 10 copies from him before the book was even published for $91, and he sent me an extra one for free.

If you're a fan of his, you should explore his TMDS blog -- there are some incredible essays tucked away in there. Also, I've posted another excerpt from The Most Dangerous Superstition here on the DP.

And thank you for the kind words about my Rights Are Santa Claus piece. I'm still waiting to hear if Strike the Root will publish it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I'll check out both tommow

already too much fun tonight!

Good job Julius

Like you said, registration of property is voluntary. I was going to go with an example of the IRS in order to show Limelemon why we are "presumed" to consent from the first move.

Let's say you get a letter from the IRS telling you they didn't receive your 1040. The IRS is assuming (presuming) that you are required to file and have "forced" you into the game!

If you don't respond properly, they will proceed to tax you as if it were voluntary. Here your silence is the consent to them filing a 1040 substitute. Let's say you do respond. If your response does not include a denial of income, then they will proceed with the substitute 1040. They do this because the tax is on "income" no matter where it comes from.

The IRS already has all the 1099's that show "income" that was received by you. But, and it's a big one, if you create the issue that what you received was not "income", then the burden shifts to the IRS to prove that what you got was "income".

The interesting thing about getting to this point with the IRS is most people think that the IRS can prove you had income. They can't, so if they are really persistent, they will say, "we think it's income, what do you think it is?" And here is the kicker, if you don't know the answer to this question, they will proceed with the substitute return because without answering the question, they presume (you consent) that YOU HAD INCOME.

That's how it works in the real world, although there are many out there who just want to be left alone and not get involved in this stuff, but i'm finding the rules of the game here on earth is, YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME.... or they will play it for you... to their advantage.

Welcome to Amerika...the land of consent by presumption.

http://www.powerpolitics.com
“If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.”

The rules of violent thugs are illegitimate.

I don’t consent to their rules of their game. They have no authority to make the rules. Their presumption of consent is illegitimate. They win because they are violent thugs, not because I consented.

What if I write down some rules and tell you that ignorance of my law is no excuse and my law says that you just consented to giving me $10. Then I make my friends be the judge in the matter and they interpret my rules in my favor. Then I use violence and threats to take your $10.

Would you recognize me as legitimate? Will you learn how to use the Limelemon Rules of Civil Procedure to play my game? Or will you call me a violent thug?

No Problem

I will recognize any government as legitimate if I'm allowed both substantive and adjective due process. This means that you must use logic and reason when defining issues and you must write down your rules so I can have notice and an opportunity to be heard fairly on the issues that I have with the rules.

That means YOU have to be fair and not arbitrary and capriccios as you have been in this discussion.

I will agree that most agents do the same, however we still have "due process" in this country even though most people have been trained otherwise. If you don't know how to protect your rights, your representative will not do it for you.

Are your rules going to have a rule that says something like this?

"An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act."

And will it contain a remedy like this?

"(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases:

(1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.

(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.

(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual."

THEIRS DO !!! (all states and federal). If you give me those options in YOUR rules, I'll play your game.

http://www.powerpolitics.com
“If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.”

illegitimate violent monopolies

I will recognize any government as legitimate if I'm allowed both substantive and adjective due process.

That’s your choice to consent to any government. I don’t recognize any government and don’t consent. If you want to take Mike DiCosola courses and play their game, that’s fine.

Just because this government/corporation says I consented doesn’t mean I did. As I said before, they get their way because they are violent thugs, not because I consented.

WAIT A TICK!

Again we need to slow down...You HAVE consented!! You keep saying you didnt consent, BUT YOU DID!! (unless you have none of the instruments of every other American)

When you applied for your drivers license, when you used the social security number for a bank loan, when you used the social security number for work, when you signed up for selective service, when you use a zip code on your mail, when you apply for a fishing license, when you file a tax return, YOU CONSENTED.

NOW, simply saying that you don't consent is meaningless.

BUT you do have the opportunity to be released from any Contract that you were tricked into signing, or that you didn't sign (such as you Social Security application).

I understand your position of frustration with the "Illegitimate Violent Monopolies" but they have still left you with a remedy.

For example, with regard to commerce...lets say you dont believe you need a Contractors license, but EVERYONE in town does believe you need a Contractors license to work, then you can either not get a license and get no work, or apply for a license and reserve your rights:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-101

    § 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

    (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

    Now you have a "license to contract", which of course the right to contract is fundamental, so you can get work, but you did not give up your rights in doing so. You only have the license "under protest".

    Start here.

    http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

consent

You HAVE consented!! You keep saying you didnt consent, BUT YOU DID!! When you applied for your drivers license...

So what happens if I don't "consent". What happens if I drive without a driver's license? The employees of the corporation will use violence against me. I applied for the license to avoid violence. Same as when someone being mugged decides to give up his wallet in order to avoid a worse fate.

The employees of the corporation don't own the roads. The roads are not their property, therefore they don't get to make the rules while I'm driving on the roads.

Why are you acting as though these thugs are legally correct? Their legal system is a total fraud. Don't legitimize it.

So what happens if I don't

    So what happens if I don't "consent". What happens if I drive without a driver's license? The employees of the corporation will use violence against me. I applied for the license to avoid violence. Same as when someone being mugged decides to give up his wallet in order to avoid a worse fate.

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/no...

See California Vehicle Code 21050 for example:
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/21050.html

    Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division and Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

Do you think that this means that an Amish family passing through must first secure a drivers license?? NO, because the California Vehicle Code does NOT apply to RIGHTS, which are what unincorporated non-consenters have, see CVC 4:

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/4.html
CVC 4

    No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of this code so far as possible.

The Supreme Court already ruled that traveling on the highway, even by an automobile is a RIGHT, BUT like everything else, the government hijacked words. Drive is a commercial term, motor vehicle is a commercial term...so if you want to "Drive" a "Motor Vehicle" on the highway, or road, you will need a license, HOWEVER, if you want to travel by your private unregistered automobile, that is a RIGHT that is secured by state Citizens.

http://section520.org/rp.html

If you had no social security number, drivers license, or registration, then what does the court do to you for punishment for 'driving without a license'? They cant affect the credit of someone with no number, they cant suspend your license if you dont have one, they cant suspend your registration if you dont have any. The worse they can do is tow your car, and you have a remedy and recourse for that. You file a claim and suit against the city for an illegal taking.

California recognizes this in the Civil Code

    "The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights."
    California Civil Code § 3527

You don't have to consent.

However, you will be judged by your actions, not your words. Unfortunately, the "violent thugs" you refer to, are going to take your silence (you saying you don't consent) as a presumption for their actions... which is what you seem to not want to happen.

I don't know who Mike DiCosola is or what his course is about, but if he plays the game the way you do or try, he will fair no better.

If you don't stand up for your rights, you are not going to get them.

http://www.powerpolitics.com
“If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.”

being judged

However, you will be judged by your actions, not your words.

And who will judge my actions? Who will say that my actions constitute consent? The violent monopolists will. Are you legitimizing them and their judgment against me?

In America, there is a third

In America, there is a third way...this is known as acquiescence through silence.

For example, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule8.htm

    (6) Effect of Failing to Deny.

    An allegation — other than one relating to the amount of damages — is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a
    responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

in California:

    Cal Civil Code 1589

    A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the
    obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

see also:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqpurch.htm

    3. Can I collect sales tax from my customer?

    Yes. Although you are required to pay and report sales taxes to the Board, you may be reimbursed by your customer for the amount of tax you owe on a sale. For example, if you are required to pay $1.75 in sales tax on a sale, you may pass that cost on to your customer, provided it is agreed to as part of the sale. It is presumed that the customer agrees to pay the addition of the tax if:

    * You list a separate amount of sales tax reimbursement on your receipts or invoices;
    * You post a sign on your premises stating that sales tax reimbursement will be added to all prices of taxable merchandise, or make a similar statement on price tags, advertising material, and other printed material directed to the purchaser; or
    * The sales agreement specifically calls for the addition of sales tax reimbursement.

    If you include sales tax reimbursement in your prices, rather than itemizing it separately on your invoices or receipts, you must inform the buyer that tax is included. You can post this information at your premises in a location that is visible to purchasers; or you can include it on a price tag or in an advertisement (whichever is applicable). Use one of the following statements:

    * All prices of taxable items include sales tax reimbursement computed to the nearest mill; or
    * The price of this item includes sales tax reimbursement computed to the nearest mill.

see:

    CVC 17460

    The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a
    driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state.

codes, rules and statutes

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) states...

Don't legitimize people who have a violent monopoly on the law and its interpretation. Figure out for yourself what 'consent' means.

Hint: it doesn't mean what the violent people with the guns say it means.

DONT forget, YOU (or your

DONT forget, YOU (or your parents) chose to sign you up as a Federal citizen, how dare you not follow the rules of the Federal Government;)

    Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

When your parents signed you up to be a Federal citizen, instead of a State Citizen (with a capital "C") your human rights were exchanged for civil rights:

    "A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
    82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

as a Federal citizen

    "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

your rights are under the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

    "…the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. … Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
    [Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993)]

Also as a Federal citizen, Congress makes ALL NEEDFUL rules for you per the Constitution.... when you realize what has happened, everything makes sense, there is no longer the need to claim that Congress is violating the Constitution, they dont need to.

http://www.dailypaul.com/140903/why-us-citizens-arent-free

Congress is consenting to my rules

It doesn't matter if Congress doesn't violate the Constitution. They could be following the Constitution to the letter. I didn't sign the Constitution. I made no agreement.

You claim that consent is implied when other people (such as my parents) do (or don't do) certain things and you cite case law. I will now apply your principle.

I am claiming that Congress is consenting to giving me $1,000 everytime they pass a new law. And since they did not dispute the validity of my rule, they are consenting.

This law is written in the Limelemon Rules of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of my laws is no excuse.

hold on.... What I am

hold on....

What I am suggesting is that there is a stack of files with your name, foot print, finger prints, social security number, and/or signature on them, that the Federal Government has been collecting for the past 20 or more years.

That is their evidence of your consent. EVERY piece of evidence they have may be "VOIDABLE" but it is NOT void simply because you believe it should be.

This is no different than if your parents used your name when you were a baby to buy a house. Of course you could get that contract removed, but it would remain a valid contract UNTIL you moved to void it.

To your example, if you had 30 documents signed and notarized by an official of the Government, stating that you would receive $1000 for every new law, then you may have a point, but you dont. This is why Amish dont get building permits, there is no stack of paperwork where the Amish declared to be Federal citizens, or wanted Federal Social Security benefits, or that they were residents, or that the wanted licenses for the 'privilege' of driving, or the 'privilege' to fish, or to join the selective service, or anything else.

rules

You were talking about acquiescence through silence. Who made up that rule? I don't see the FRCP as legitimate.

It all comes down to property rights. The requirement for building permits and real estate taxes is not about consent. It's about thugs claiming a monopoly over an entire land that they don't own via homesteading. They are just claiming their territorial monopoly via violence and threats.

This contract/consenting stuff you talk about is illegitimate. The people who judge these supposed contracts are part of the same violent monopoly.

Don't you see that their monopoly on the interpretation of their own rules is bogus?

To summarize:

1. The US is a corporation
2. People are being tricked into consenting
3. The rules are made up by people who have a monopoly on law and and monopoly on its interpretation