Originally posted by sh76
Contract law imputes agreements to people all the time. If a doctor saves a person choking in a 7-11 by performing a tracheotomy with a Bic pen and a straw (as generally happens on medical dramas), the doctor can send a bill and sue for it if it is unpaid. I could renounce criminal laws and announce that henceforth, I refuse to agree to abide my them, but if I ...[text shortened]... ng in a society is that you conform to that society's rules, whether you agree to them or not.
I think one can presume consent, but one cannot impute it. It's just not imputable.
The fact that most people consent to pay taxes does not logically or causally or in any other way entail that I give my actual consent. Sure, if I don't give my consent, I may be ungrateful; sure, I may be breaking the law; sure, I may be a free rider on public goods; sure, I may be undermining the process whereby those goods are provided. But it's not possible in principle for my consent to be taxed to be imputed from the consent of the majority.
I am assuming that "imputed" carries some ontological force, that it means that I have actually consented in reality if most other people have given their consent.
But:
Maybe by "imputed" you mean "presumed" or "inferred". In that case, we have no quarrel. But presuming of inferred X does not make X the case. That lots of people give their consent for X cannot make me give my consent by X. But it may be a good basis for inferring or presuming that I would give my consent, in the absence of definitive evidence. For reasonable taxes spent well by a government, there may well be a presumption of consent to pay them.
Or maybe by "imputed" you just mean "legally enforced". In that case, we also have no quarrel. If you have legal authority, you can deem that I have given my consent on the grounds that most people have or would in such circumstances, if you think it's a good law to make (and it might be). But you would still be wrong to think that makes it the case that I have given my consent. The law here is telling me how I should be, not how I am.
Turning to your example, nearly everyone would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum to a doctor in thanks for saving their life by tracheotomy. Here, consent can usually be presumed.
But suppose I was trying to commit suicide by choking. Assume too suicide that is legal, and that the doctor knew I was trying to commit suicide. Should I still owe the doctor money if he acted to save my life? I say no. The fact that most people would want their life to be saved in such a circumstances does not mean that my consent can be imputed if I don't happen to give it. It can of course be presumed with high certainty under most circumstances; it a rare person who would willingly choke themselves to death. But if that presumption can be shown to be wrong in my case, I think I should owe the doctor nothing. The law could make me owe something; but it would not make be consent to paying it. I maintain that the doctor would be thieving my money, even if the law said I should pay. The law would support a form of theft. Maybe tax laws do the same.