You are clearly misrepresenting the author. The second part of the article starts with a concession that democracy is beneficial despite the lack of consent. He

You are clearly misrepresenting the author. The second part of the article starts with a concession that democracy is beneficial despite the lack of consent. He is arguing that the non-consensual nature of government suggests limited local government is preferable to needlessly invasive global government. Here's a relevant snippet: > Nonconsensual government must be subject to a substantial burden of proof when it exercises coercive authority, and it may often fail to meet it. The nonconsensual nature of most government policies also strengthens the case for devolving power to regional and local authorities in order to increase the number of issues on which citizens can “vote with their feet” and thereby exercise at least some degree of meaningful consent.