The problem with “implicit consent via acceptance of services” is that if someone takes you as a slave, unless you choose to starve to death in protest, you have “implicitly consented” to slavery by eating the food they gave you. This argument proves too much; it legitimizes not only governments but also slavery.
For the record, I am not an anarchist, and my objection against violating someone’s consent is not absolute. From my perspective, we live in a universe that doesn’t care about our freedoms or happiness, and sometimes there is simply no perfect solution, and trying to make people happy in one way will only make them unhappy in a different way. So I see consent as an important—but not absolute—thing. If building a functional society requires occasionally violating someone’s consent, I guess it should be done, because the alternative is much worse. But it should not be done cheaply, and we should not pretend that it didn’t happen, which is what the social contract theory is trying to do, in my opinion.
The problem with “implicit consent via acceptance of services” is that if someone takes you as a slave, unless you choose to starve to death in protest, you have “implicitly consented” to slavery by eating the food they gave you. This argument proves too much; it legitimizes not only governments but also slavery.
For the record, I am not an anarchist, and my objection against violating someone’s consent is not absolute. From my perspective, we live in a universe that doesn’t care about our freedoms or happiness, and sometimes there is simply no perfect solution, and trying to make people happy in one way will only make them unhappy in a different way. So I see consent as an important—but not absolute—thing. If building a functional society requires occasionally violating someone’s consent, I guess it should be done, because the alternative is much worse. But it should not be done cheaply, and we should not pretend that it didn’t happen, which is what the social contract theory is trying to do, in my opinion.