This might as well be heresy or blasphemy. I jettisoned consent of the governed a while back. I think it’s an impossible standard that leads to a kind of gridlock in how to procede when there is a party who withholds their consent to some social system or set of political rules.
Suppose someone says that they never consented to public accommodations laws. Now let’s suppose someone else complains that they never consented to laws against trespass. Public accommodations laws, in addition to requiring an establishment to serve someone regardless of a particular attribute, make refusal to leave an establishment, when that establishment wishes someone to leave because they are of a particular attribute that is protected (i.e., race, sex, etc.), which non-consenting party’s non-consent wins?
I submit that this problem is even more broad and that any arrangement in society a person wishes to be changed constitutes being governed without consent. This then leads to the gridlock I’m talking about: the complainant doesn’t consent to the arrangements supported by everyone else while everyone else doesn’t consent to whatever arrangements that the complainer thinks are the fallback position.