If each individual does not have the right to engage in violence, where did the state get it?

Source: CTV News

I've trained in the martial arts for over 10 years, obtaining my 3rd Dan (degree) blackbelt.  I've competed in several competitions as well.  Prior to entering into a competition I had to sign a release form.  In that document, I acknowledged that the activities that I was about to participate in was dangerous and there were risks of bodily harm.  I also had to waive any claims against the organizers or other participants and take full responsibility for my actions and outcomes from the competition.   

That document was my consent to others that it was okay for them to punch or kick me within the rules of the sport and for me to punch or kick them.  However, I also knew full well what I was getting involved in.  Through my extensive training, I became very familiar with the art form, rules of the sport and I even knew how to take a punch or kick.  By entering into the competition, I went in with eyes wide open and fully aware.   

It is my informed consent that granted permission to the other competitors that it was okay for them to kick or punch me.  Without that consent, I would be violating the other individual and the state would step in and charge people with assault. 

When it comes to our relationship with the state however, do we go through years of training to really help us comprehend the full scope of what we are getting ourselves into?  Is it explained during our training sessions in school that by participating with the state, we consent to them using force or coercion against us if we don't follow their rules?  How many people fully comprehend how this relationship is supposed to work? The state uses a different protocol which does not require informed consent from everyone.    

Consent: A deliberate and free act of the mind; an act of reason accompanied by deliberation.  thus an instrument such as a will may be invalidated if consent is obtained by fraud or undue influence.  - Canadian Law Dictionary - 5th Edition

They don't care about informed consent.  all they care about is whether we surrendered to their authority and swore fealty to them.  But how many of us grew up within the state, born within its borders and in its jurisdiction?  How many of us went through state sponsored schools that only taught what the state wanted us to learn?  Would that not constitute undue influence?  Does this whole thing violate the principles of proper consent?  How many of us were provided with all the information we needed in order to make an informed choice when we reached the legal age and capable of making contracts for ourselves or knew the consequences of surrendering and swearing fealty to the state? 

These are all very important questions to contemplate if we really want to explore our relationship with a violent empire.  It is my experience that when we answer these questions for ourselves and explicitly revoke our consent to participate and follow that up with actions to demonstrate that we are no longer involved with their empire, they will leave people alone.   

The interesting part of this process is that we don't need to comprehend how their system works AND we don't need anybodies permission or consent either.  Each and every single one of us can say 'NO' and walk away.  However, the consequences of that choice is significant.   

The state gets away with their violent behaviours because they have intimidated, manipulated, brainwashed and hoodwinked people for thousands of years.  Their violence and coercion is morally and ethically wrong but continues through our support and participation.  

Each generation continues the cycle because their parents did it too.  Informed consent is the exercise of free will and being well informed as to the consequences of our actions and participation.  They use a principle called 'tacit acceptance'.  

Tacit:  Unspoken; silent, emitting no sound. - Oxford Unabridged Dictionary (1958)

If you don't explicitly say 'NO', they take it as a 'YES'.  This is an international protocol as well.  Nation states use this all the time to reduce the amount of paperwork and communication.  Could you imagine how much of a headache it would be if we had to receive a 'yes' every time we wanted to interact with somebody?  It is much easier to just object to things we disagree with.  But how many of us object or say no?  

No is the least understood and yet the most powerful word in our language.  Perhaps we should do away with the principle of tacit acceptance and reverse it to 'tacit non-acceptance'.  So rather than assuming people agree, we should assume that they do not agree.  That puts a greater burden on us all, but at least we fix the problem and force ourselves to do our due diligence and acquire informed consent, just like in the martial arts tournaments.  This is, in my view, a foundational principle of self-governance.  We should all assume 'no' until we get a confirmed 'yes'!  

I propose that part of the Pacem Arts (Art of Peace) we do indeed make this reversal and always assume that we do NOT have anybodies consent for anything and that we need to do our due diligence to acquire that consent.  It is a pain but it would solve a lot of problems in our lives.  

The funny thing is that if we place this burden on the state, it would crumble as it is not possible for them to govern millions of people under this protocol.  Ideas that make one go 'hmmmm'.  That is why I am very explicit in my relationship with the state.  I placed that burden on them and I suspect they know it!