The dictionary definition of consent doesn't say anything about the means through which consent is obtained, legally speaking it must be given on free will, without any coercion while someone is of sound mind. However the paradox is if you accept the legal definition, that means you must have given that legal entity(the government court system in this case) consent to define the term for you. But if you have not given them consent to enforce their laws that are perceived as unjust upon you, how can you trust or consent them to define such an important term? If you want to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't, then why cm a serial killer not consent to murder being illegal? Sure, there may be moral issues drawing a line at murder, but then you are forcing someone to conform to your ideas without consent. Is your goal not to allow institutions to force their agenda unto you without consent? Sorry if my writings are poorly formatted, this touchscreen carl sucks.