That doesn't address the point I made. If you are telling people of a way to discharge student loans that is accepted by the de facto law then that's a seperate matter. There are certainly ways to discharge student loans that are accepted by the de facto courts. Nobody would dispute that.
However, there is no known instance of a de facto court accepting the argument that individual consent is required in order for statutes to be applicable to them. So even if the many failed attempts have not adopted your logic, you surely must admit that at best you have an untested argument. Until it is accepted by the de facto courts it is irresponsible and misleadaing to say "this is how it is" rather than "here is what I believe to be a good argument."
For instance your example of me hiring a realtor to sell your home without your consent. I agree that I would not be able to do this according to the de facto courts. But the reason I agree is not because such an action offends my personal sense of morality, but because there is no known instance of the de facto court supporting such a position. If the law were to change in this regard then I would have to change my answer and admit that yes in fact I can hire a realtor to sell your house without your consent. This would become the de facto law, regardless of how good a philosophical argument you could make against it.
)