Guy A: "Hey buddy, isn't that your car over there?"
Guy B: "Yeah. So?"
Guy A: "So someone's breaking into it! Look!"
Guy B: "Well, that's the price I pay to live in a civilized country."
Guy A: "Huh? Now he's hot-wiring it. You just gonna stand there?"
Guy B: "I'm willing to contribute to this great society we live in."
Guy A: "What are you talking about? You're being robbed!"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. It's not robbery. It's the will of the people."
Guy A: "What people? Aren't you the one who paid for the car?"
Guy B: "Yeah, but the guy who's taking it is serving the common good."
Guy A: "How does that guy stealing your car help the common good?"
Guy B: "Well, I trust he'll do useful things with my car."
Guy A: "Weren't you going to do useful things with it?"
Guy B: "Yes, but if we each just used our own stuff, there would be chaos!"
Guy A: "Well, you can trade stuff, but that guy just stole your car!!"
Guy B: "No he didn't. By living on this block I agreed to lose my car."
Guy A: "So anyone can swipe your car, and you don't mind?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly! Only the local carjacker can do it."
Guy A: "So whoever decides to be a carjacker is allowed to rob you?"
Guy B: "Well, if I don't like it, I can try to appoint a new local carjacker."
Guy A: "What would be the point of that? The new guy would still steal your car!"
Guy B: "Yes, but he would be representing me while stealing my car."
Guy A: "What does that mean?! How does a thief represent you?"
Guy B: "Because I can ask him to do good things with my car."
Guy A: "And will he listen to you, and do what you want?"
Guy B: "Well, so far they never have. But I keep trying."
Guy A: "Why would you even try?"
Guy B: "You have to participate. Otherwise you can't complain."
Guy A: "Yes I can! I'm not the one claiming that I should be robbed!"
Guy B: "You have to work within the system."
Guy A: "What system? The system made up by the carjackers?"
Guy B: "Of course. It's the civilized thing to do."
Guy A: "Why not oppose carjacking altogether?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. Every town has to have some carjacking."
Guy A: "So you're just going to keep putting up with being robbed?"
Guy B: "It's not robbery. The carjackers have my implied consent to do it."
Guy A: "What? You told them they could take it?"
Guy B: "No, but by living here, that counts as me giving them permission."
Guy A: "Who says so?"
Guy B: "The carjackers. They say being here counts as agreeing to be robbed."
Guy A: "And you believe them?!"
Guy B: "Look, if you don't like being robbed, leave my neighborhood!"
Guy A: "But I'm saying that you shouldn't be robbed!"
Guy B: "Yes I should, you wacko, fringe kook! Now go away!"
Of course, such a conversation would never really happen. Unless, of course, the thief was called "government," in which case that very conversation happens quite often. The victims of state robbery constantly argue that they somehow gave their "consent" to be robbed, and that the robbers "represent" them. They babble on and on about the "common good," the "will of the people," and other collectivist garbage, in an attempt to justify their own robbery and oppression. How sad is that? Meanwhile, their pro-slavery rhetoric--spewed back in Pavlovian fashion, having been hammered into their heads by the indoctrination camps called "schools"--carefully tap-dances around some basic, undeniable aspects of reality:
1) Money swiped via "taxation" doesn't go to "the people"--it goes to the politicians, who spend it however they damn well please (handouts to huge banks, war-mongering, vote-buying, etc.).
2) "Taxation" is not the result of "consent" or "agreement"--it is the confiscation of money via the threat of violence. (Bizarrely, the victims often claim that they choose to be "taxed," and do so willingly, as if they have a choice.)
3) To say that politicians "represent" the people makes no more sense than saying that a carjacker "represents" his victim. And using the term "public servants" to describe the ruling class is equally asinine. We earn it, the politicians take it and spend it. To pretend that we are in control of the arrangement, or that we are the beneficiaries of the situation, is just plain batty, but most people still claim that that is the case.
4) Even if the people had the power to choose who was going to rob and oppress them, that has nothing to do with "representation" or "consent." Unless each person can choose to have "none of the above" robbing him, there is no representation and no consent involved. (Despite statist propaganda, a collective cannot give "consent" for an individual to be robbed. If the actual person involved doesn't agree to it, it's not consent, any more than gang rape is "consensual," because all of the perpetrators "consented" on behalf of the victim.)
5) The people don't have the power to choose who will rob and oppress them. The current ruling class gives them two identical twin tyrants to "choose" from, which--amazingly--makes lots of the peasants think they are in control.
As Goethe put it, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." But maybe he was wrong. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who zealously argue for their own continued enslavement." And that is a fine description of most Americans.