Why are they not collected through consent?

What kind of consent? On an individual basis? Because the assholes won't pay putting more burden on those who do while the assholes use the further power/capital disparity to corrupt society in their favor. Governmentally we have many times, every time a new government is formed, and there is always the option of the people tearing it all down when it stops doing what it is suppose to when all the other alternatives are made impossible.

Also every society that concentrates power into a larger government through taxation will inevitably invade and destroy or subjugate those who decided they wanted the smallest bare minimum of community support and collective services that leaves them vulnerable.

Yes, on an individual basis. I don't think I like the sound of group consent. Hi! Your peer group has decided that you consent to xyz.

Someone never understood the tragedy of the commons.

Nobody ever understood the tragedy of the commons.

No one would consent.

There are many community groups historically funded through consent with seemingly no direct kickbacks, including churches.

We're not talking about communities, we're talking about modern countries. Most people aren't willing to pay out of pocket for anything that doesn't benefit them directly, which is why the reason most people give to charity is that its tax deductible. A few might give out of the kindness of their heart or some sense of civic duty, but not enough.

I agree that the primary function of taxation is to fund things that have serious free rider problems otherwise.

But part of the problem is the lack of community structure and expectation that we can centrally fund and manage problems. There are whole communities in the US that lived for generations on civic duty and kindness of heart.

>There are whole communities in the US that lived for generations on civic duty and kindness of heart.

But not entirely. Living in the US means they take advantage of the American capitalist system and infrastructure to some degree, which means they benefit from taxation. And obviously they pay their taxes otherwise the men with guns would have shown up.

And again, the free rider problem is intractable at scale. You can't simply build "community structure" and expect everyone to buy in. If that were possible, we wouldn't need laws at all, we could just expect everyone to play nice. And the fact that most people play nice by default doesn't imply laws aren't necessary.

And we can centrally fund and manage problems. That does work. Look at the numerous public work projects in the US like Hoover Dam, NASA, interstate highways, modern agriculture, the internet. None of that happens if all you can depend on is kindness of heart.

All good things come from God and God’s greatness shines of all the earth, and anything that ever happens is because of God, but for you it’s the State.

Just because a good thing exists does not mean I’m indebted to it. The city may build a really nice park on the other side of town. That doesn’t mean I’m being subsidized or dependent.

The people of Maine did not benefit from the Hoover Dam.

> You can't simply build "community structure" and expect everyone to buy in.

You’re right that we can’t magically recreate communities that were destroyed, but this is actually the default human behavior. Small community cooperate together for common good.

> If that were possible, we wouldn't need laws at all

This doesn’t follow. People’s short term behavior may not align with their long term values.

Crime/sin is traditionally when your passions get the best of you.