You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.
Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:
R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html
6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance.
This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:
Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca407/2010bcca407.html
[33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.
...
[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.
R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html
[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.
If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9368/2009canlii9368.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc190/2000bcsc190.html
I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.
