Context
A while ago Richard Clarke published Consentism: A Motion to Re-brand Anarcho Capitalism, which I believe made some compelling points.
I'd like to test the viability of the term by making a video about Consentism. Here's the first draft. Any and all input is very welcome. You can also leave comments on this google doc if you prefer (the document is subject to ongoing change): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H7ba07R0igCZY5s1c3PoLE1WphWXZba3Db0hLl5WjDw/edit?usp=sharing
Consentism
What is consent?
Roughly it's an agreement by the owner of a thing that the thing may be used in a specific way.
You own your body.
That means another person must get your permission if they want to use your body.
We don't usually talk about sex in these terms, but during sex, two people use one-another's bodies.
If one of those people don't want their body to be used in that way, the sex is not consensual.
Consent can't be given under duress. That means if a person says yes to sex, believing they will be harmed if they don't cooperate, that isn't genuine consent.
We call sex without consent rape. And we condemn rapists in the strongest way.
Consentists believe that consent is extremely important, a central principle for civil society, and that we should be extremely critical of any interaction that is non-consensual.
A thoroughgoing commitment to consent has other implications.
Another way a body may be used is to have violence deliberately applied to it - for instance dragging, punching or shooting. We believe violence of this kind is only acceptable in response to a violation of consent - actual or threatened.
When you refuse to pay the fees demanded of you by the government, you'll receive additional fines, but if you continue not to cooperate, eventually agents of the state will find you, and will use violence against you, if necessary, to take you away.
Consentists believe that this violence is not legitimate. It doesn't seem as though the victim has consented to any agreement in which violence against them is stipulated as a consequence of non-payment of taxes. And if she somehow had agreed, she would have done so under duress: knowing that non-cooperation will ultimately be met by violence.
That's why we believe taxation is non-consensual, and therefore illegitimate.