To be sure, when Abraham Lincoln said "no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent," he was referring to owning slaves. The men go

To be sure, when Abraham Lincoln said "no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent," he was referring to owning slaves. The men governed without consent were literal slaves; the governers were not governments, but private citizens. This is a really strange article. Look at its claim that "the exercise of coercive power without consent is a bad thing." First of all, coercion means without consent by definition; you can't have consent and coercion. Second, most laws are about actions which affect other people. What does consent look like there? You can't unilaterally refuse to consent to speed limits, because that affects me by putting me at greater risk. You need my consent too. And if we disagree? It also refers to "nonconsensual government," implying there's such a thing as "consensual government, and later references "a government that genuinely derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." But it doesn't explain what that would look like.