"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, & parents from their children, & compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous & baleful aspect, to trample down & destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?" — Daniel Webster, address to the House of Representatives, December 9, 1814, arguing against a proposed military draft

Ask a young person whether he personally consented to everything the federal government has the legal authority to require of him. If he answers no, the conventional reply is that direct consent isn't necessary: he is represented by elected officials. But representation is not agency in the ordinary sense. He has signed no contract with his representative, cannot direct his votes, and cannot terminate the relationship even if the representative breaks all his campaign promises.

Furthermore, he is still subject to their legislation even if he didn't vote or if the legislation was passed before he was eligible to vote. How many people alive today voted for legislation establishing a legal counterfeiting racket known as the federal reserve or the income tax and its associated hit squad, the IRS? 

Or the Selective Service Act of 1918? 

Has government offered today's constituents to vote on these and other laws passed before they were born?

The same is true for the president and his cabinet. People vote for Dr. Jekyll hoping he doesn't turn out to be Mr. Hyde, but if he does, or worse, it is not easy to undo the damage.

In Rights of Man, Part the First, Thomas Paine critiqued Member of Parliament Edmund Burke's defense of the English government in his pamphlet Reflections on the Revolution in France. Paine cites Richard Price's sermon of November 4, 1789 as upsetting to Burke. Price—a Welsh-born Presbyterian minister and author of Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty (1776)—argued that England's Glorious Revolution of 1688 had established three fundamental rights of the people: "To chuse our own governors; to cashier them for misconduct; and to frame a government for ourselves."