I think this is a particularly terrifying view. Following this logic all number of terrible things that we would normally consider crimes could be written into

I think this is a particularly terrifying view. Following this logic all number of terrible things that we would normally consider crimes could be written into a constitution - and your line of thinking is we should then stop considering them crimes. Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them. Again this isn't a compelling argument, or even a point. You might say that about any state - totalitarian or not. I'm struggling not to invoke Godwins law here. The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not. Again, this logic leads to some terrifying conclusions. Your argument is that by living in an area under jurisdiction by a given state, you consent to everything the state does to you because you haven't fled. Again - think of all the things states potentially have the power to do, still do to this day, and have done in the past. It follows that everyone on the globe consents to these things unless they bcome refugees. I've yet to see anyone make a coherent argument for "taxation isn't extortion" which doesn't immediately lead to the authoritarian conclusion that nothing a state does is a crime, and that anyone living in an area controlled by a state consents to whatever the state chooses to do. An argument I can at least respect "taxation is essentially extortion, but I believe the end justifies the means".