If you insist....(I should state that I find the discussion interesting from a philosophical perspective, but that I find it to be something that's realistically impossible to address in the real world - much the same way that communism makes perfect sense on paper, but in reality, just doesn't work).
Why not let people who want to opt out go live free of US laws and taxes in a remote part of Montana or Utah? Or be provided with fewer (or no) government resources in return for being free (or mostly relieved) of taxes?
Because they still realize the benefits of the government on an international and national basis. They still have access to roads and infrastructure. They still have the benefit of international military force (being land locked). It also creates a whole host of extremely problematic issues related to fairness for those who do choose to consent to the governance structure we have. That's the basis of a point I've made earlier.
If you support Bernie Sanders you support exacting funds from people at the barrel of a gun. Sorry that I don't have much respect for thugs. Maybe you would find me similarly objectionable if I was threatening your existence? Thankfully I believe in rights and wouldn't do such a thing.
The penalty for failure to pay your taxes is imprisonment, not execution. But your point is taken regardless of that inaccuracy. Our government believes in rights, too. There are rules under which you can and cannot be taxed. Rules which you as an individual can effect (though perhaps not as effectively as you would prefer). All that being said, economically, the absence of taxes isn't going to really mean you have more to yourself. A large portion of your income is adjusted based on the cost of living (including taxes) and the quality of life you have. Now, it's not 1:1, but if taxes are 50% of income, that doesn't really mean that if you lived in a place where taxes were outlawed that you'd have 50% more income. That's quite unlikely.
In that circumstance, how exactly does a government differ from the mob? If, instead of calling themselves The Mob, they called themselves The Commonwealth of Spartanburg, would that change your mind? Is the difference that the government writes its laws down, but the mob doesn't? I'm sure they would be willing to make that concession.
The rules are written. The rules are able to be modified if an effective argument for their modification is made. You as a citizen, with other citizens, have the ability to advocate for modifications. Does that mean you always get your way? No. But it does mean (in most cases) that the government cannot just make up the rules as it goes along and change them on its whim when it suits them. The government can be restrained, even from within, by its own doing (checks and balances). The mob effectively has little mechanism for restraint. So it is different.
I've already stated that my issue is that government by the consent is only meaningful if you can 1. vote in a way that actually has the prospect of changing policy, and 2. you have the option to leave and go somewhere not ruled by a governmental entity.
At what point is your vote meaningful? Why is your definition of meaningful the definition. Why is the vote the sole mechanism of meaning and ability to impact your government? In practice there are many mechanisms by which an ordinary person can impact the governmental system outside of voting.
Devolve almost all federal powers to the states, increase the size of Congress to at least 20,000 members, and have all of the members serve from their home districts, not in D.C. Next carve out a part of Montana and a few other Western states, and make it into a free land which is subject to either minimal or no government restrictions/taxes.
Increasing congressional members does not necessarily improve the ability of the government in representing its people on a national scale. If I could find the segment on Hello Internet (CGP Grey's podcast) where he talks about the UK elections and compares them to the US it would be relevant here. But suffice it to say that doesn't necessarily solve your problem, because you're still going to have coalitions on a national level and the voices of those 20k representatives are much weaker when they're so many. What if Montana, and Utah, don't want to participate in this plan of yours? What if they want to be part of the Union and have no interest in being part of this "no government" experiment? What if people who already live there don't want to live with others who are not part of the system (because they aren't bound to the same rules as everyone who is)? Those are all very real operational issues that we're faced with in addressing the problem you have presented. Maybe this is something that could have been considered when the Louisiana Purchase was made. But now, it's quite a bit more difficult. On top of that, the States have little mechanism to represent individuals on an international basis (primarily defense). You also still have the same core issue in some States with large populations (see: California). You're effectively saying that a nation-state shouldn't exist unless it is limited to X number of people and they can opt out. What I'm saying is that as an academic thought experiment - that's philosophically interesting, but when it comes to putting such a program in place in practice - it is far from simple (especially the way you've put it out like it's some no brainer and quickly solved).
Again, I can't tell if you're just being bull headed or if you genuinely don't grasp what I'm saying. The right to vote does not, in and of itself, create government by consent. If your vote was one among five billion, you would not have meaningful consent of the governed. Your voice is so watered down that it is genuinely meaningless. In this case we have gerrymandering, corruption, and a tiny amount of representatives for such a large population. That means that your "consent" to be governed by means of voting is much less meaningful than it should be.
See above regarding number of representatives per population not necessarily increasing their effectiveness. That being said, issues related to gerrymandering and corruption are very much front and center for Sanders. If we address those issues, we have some big strides towards a more representative government. You have the option to leave - you just may not like what it entails (get a boat and go live in international waters - or find an uncharted island). Alternatively, go live off the grid in the middle of nowhere as a drifter. You could go to Antarctica, perhaps, though there's some international treaties that cover that area. But until Rapture becomes a reality (with all that entails), you're going to have some serious difficulties addressing prong number 2 on your rule list. Your vote as an individual is meaningless. Absolutely, but in abundance, that's not true. We have a low voter turn out. If you push strongly enough for what you believe in and are able to generate lots of support from people who would otherwise not vote - you've got a movement (hell this happened with the tea party to some extent). It's easier to do if you have lots of money - during the current system we have. But a lot of people who support Sanders do so because he's looking for ways to make the government more representative of the disenfranchised.
Opting out is easy to solve. Staying put is not, but it's also probably not necessary to meaningful consent.
Well, if opting out means you can leave and not be bound by the rules of the government - then you have that ability. You just don't like what it means. That's cool, I don't blame you. But while you may have a realistic right to opt out, you don't have a realistic right to opt out and have the ideal life (in your mind) as a result. You don't have a right to get everything you want. Philosophically, you never have. There have always been boundaries which prevented that, though with increasing global population (and therefore increasing competing interests) the rate of conflict for those who want to do their own thing increases.
As opposed to the state, which magnanimously decrees that both the rich and the poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges. The state is used as a cudgel by the rich to keep the poor tamped down. You agree with that conclusion too, else you wouldn't support Bernie Sanders.
The power of the state is from the people. There have been laws which have been made and subsequently overturned because people did not like them. To go with something simple: look at red light cameras. As far as the state being used by the rich, I wouldn't disagree with that - but then again Sanders wouldn't either. But we're trying to change that. That doesn't however mean that the state can't make decrees about the rules under which we are all going to live.