There can be no valid government

For the authorities to claim have the consent of the governed is a lie and an oxymoron, there is no consent of the governed, by definition.

If the governed have no land it makes sense that they would withdraw their consent from the government, and since (it is claimed) we can only legitimately govern with consent then we have no right to govern over the landless. We can presume consent exists only from those who have a vested interest in our success, and they would be landowners, protecting their own interests. The landless do not have an interest in the success of the state. We can presume consent (from the group) for our actions exists if we are protecting a shared property, such as a town or a street, but not if what we are protecting is owned by only an individual. Consent can only logically be allied to (vested) interests, so then we can presume that consent will be withdrawn if our (personal) interests are not being protected. There is consent only if there is a group, so (civic) consent is impossible (the opinion of the group is a fictional justification for the use of force) and then if we are able to govern only with the consent of the governed this too (as a consequence) is illegitimate because we have no valid consent, in this context.

If to be valid the government requires the consent of the governed only the opinion of one person is sufficient to contradict this clause. If the government has the natural support of everyone then there is no requirement for it and it does not exist in any meaningful sense. If there is no antagonism within government then it is meaningless. It is impossible for the government to have any meaningful consent (for the use of force) from individuals and so it (government) is always imposed illegitimately.

All government is illegitimate, all illegitimate acts are an act of the state.