Tacit Consent

On Friday I conducted a colloquium at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas, with the title "If You Believe in Nonviolence, You Should Be an Anarchist." (I'll post the link when it's uploaded to YouTube.) During the Q&A I was challenged by two professors who invoked the social contract and tacit consent in an effort to refute my claim that the state is founded on (the threat of) violence against nonaggressors. They argued that since we all tacitly consent to the state, its use of force cannot be properly regarded as aggression. Rather, it is merely a sanction against those who have violated their agreement to obey the state. (I apologize if I have not precisely captured their objection. I believe this is the gist of their argument.)

For the first time in a while this got me thinking about the curious principle of tacit consent. Here are the thoughts I jotted down today. (I'll be returning to this subject, I'm sure.)

• When did I or anyone consent?(One of my interlocutors seemed to think this was an invalid, even unfair question.)
  
• If I have tacitly consented to be taxed, why haven't I also tacitly consented to all the purposes to which the state puts my money?
  
• Why can't I withdraw my consent?
• How do I withdraw my consent? Must I move out of the state's jurisdiction?
• If that is the only way, doesn't that imply that the state owns the territory?
• How did that come about? (I'm thinking of Monte Python and the Holy Grail now; script is here.)
  
• Presumably the state has obligations under the social contract. But what if the state defaults on its obligations? Does that nullify the contract?
• Who decides when and if that has occurred? Presumably, the state's own courts.
  
• Why do the state's courts get to judge a claim that the state has defaulted on the contract? Why not a truly neutral arbiter?
  
• Is my consent tacit, unconditional, and perpetual?
• How can that be?