...it may be possible to come up with a theoretical “happy medium” between what we have today and what we want. Something that would allow for much more consent than the current situation but still allow some form of government. As an example, let’s say that any individual law is only good for 4 years, at which point it must be brought up for vote again in the legislature or automatically be repealed; therefore not forcing our governance and contract on another generation. This would have other good side effects, greatest among them IMO, that the legislature wouldn’t have enough time to make a lot of new unneeded laws. Also, it would allow for more trial and error without a long period of ill effects. Some would say that this would cause too much economic instability but I would argue that if we started with a government along the lines of the minarcist libertarian view and added the short term law, we wouldn’t have ceded power to regulate the economy in the first place.
I think this would be a good start. The default state being no laws (as opposed to all laws never yet repealed), only altered when the people see the need to enact laws (that power defined and limited by the rights of individuals it affects), coupled with universal enfranchisement, might make voting practicable, incentivized, and simultaneously legitimate enough to begin to be argued as implying a government of consent. (This is predicate upon the existence of voting rights for felons, however -- even while serving their sentences.)
I think consideration still needs to be made as to the ability of those who wish to live under no governance to be free from it, absent provable aggression on their part. It is not a simple issue, for as Jefferson noted, the majority will always have, whether right or wrong,
the power to pass whatever law they like on the minority.
What I am saying is, while I have no issue with any body taking thieves and murderers and sentencing them to justice -- a justice which may and likely ought to be textually defined and limited -- with no opportunity for those criminals to "opt-out" of the enforcement of said punishment, there also ought to be a way for those who are not aggressors to opt-out of payment for and receipt of services such as, for example, police to do the arresting of the criminals.
A system of voluntary public insurance ought to be operated for the provision of protective services. Also, I think that those services should be purchasable up-front for what they actually cost on a one-time basis. This way so as to provide the freedom to, for example, pay a small regular monthly fee for fire protection, on an insurance model, as well as the freedom to -- having opted not to pay such a fee regularly -- pay for the actual cost of the service should it need to be rendered, as well as the freedom to call a private company on the day your house is set ablaze. (The details of the issue of debt which would inevitably occur from the occasional inability to pay for one-time-basis public services are not relevant to the point at hand.)
Such non-coercive services, coupled with a legislature operating on the premise you've suggested, would go a long way, I think, towards a voluntary society.
One, yes, where we could all take bong hits and hold hands and sing Kumbaya, or whatever it was that it was suggested earlier.