Using statists' own reasoning, I doubt there can be any such thing as "consent of the governed".
What is the "age of consent" for being governed? Why wouldn't the statists insist on such with something as important as giving someone else total control over your body/life, liberty, and property? Governing someone has much more potential for grievous harm than mere sexual activity. Yet, they impose their own idea of an "age of consent" for that, and neglect making one up for being governed. They even insist on governing infants! What perverts they are!
Age and the ability to legitimately consent may have a loose correlation, but age doesn't magically mean someone is or is not able to give consent. For anything.
Rather than the number of years a person has lived, consent rests on the ability to understand what you are considering consenting to, and the emotional maturity to handle its consequences.
If there were going to be such a thing as "age of consent" where being governed is concerned, it would need to be about 150 years old. Governing anyone under that age would be Statutory Tyranny.
In fact, I would argue that consenting to be governed it is a sign you lack the understanding or emotional maturity to actually consent. It is self-disproving.
Of course, some people go out of their way begging to be governed. This shows they are mentally or emotionally too frail to consent to be governed. They are mental or emotional invalids, to be pitied and not trusted with important things.
I don't consent to be governed.
Statists might imagine that since I don't kill everyone who tries to govern me, this implies consent.
That's silly, and just how silly it is can be shown by imagining another non-consensual situation.
Unless you kill the rapist who is raping you, you obviously consent. Right? Or, you could choose an alternate rapist if you don't want to be raped by the one who is currently violating you. That you don't do either one implies consent. At least, when applied to governing.
