[nailer]

> Like, why would this be true

Steel-manning the sovereign citizens movement (which I don't believe in): they believe authority comes from the consent of the populace, which is a true statement and in many countries founding documents, they mistakenly think that means the law doesn't apply to them when they as an individual do not consent.

They basically don't get that democracy is the tyranny of the many.

[nfw2]

Social contract philosophy has always seemed oversimplified to me. Are people in China or Iran consenting? "I consent, so I won't be killed" seems more like coercion.

[skinfaxi]

What is tolerated is consented to in a sense. The alternative is rejection of the contract terms but you have to be willing to bet your life on it.

[nfw2]

I don't see how that could be called consent. No one would say someone consented to sex, for example, because they weren't willing to die by refusing.