According to John Locke at least, and as he says in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, when you are born into a country, live there and take advantage of its offerings (acquire property specifically), and more importantly, of your own free will choose not to leave that country to pursue a life elsewhere, you give your tacit consent to the laws and customs of the country you live in. An excerpt dealing with the idea of tacit consent is below:
Sec. 110. Thus, whether a family by degrees grew up into a
common-wealth, and the fatherly authority being continued on to the
elder son, every one in his turn growing up under it, tacitly
submitted to it, and the easiness and equality of it not offending any
one, every one acquiesced, till time seemed to have confirmed it, and
settled a right of succession by prescription: or whether several
families, or the descendants of several families, whom chance,
neighbourhood, or business brought together, uniting into society, the
need of a general, whose conduct might defend them against their
enemies in war, and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity
of that poor but virtuous age, (such as are almost all those which
begin governments, that ever come to last in the world) gave men one
of another, made the first beginners of commonwealths generally put
the rule into one man's hand, without any other express limitation or
restraint, but what the nature of the thing, and the end of government
required: which ever of those it was that at first put the rule into
the hands of a single person, certain it is no body was intrusted with
it but for the public good and safety, and to those ends, in the
infancies of commonwealths, those who had it commonly used it. And
unless they had done so, young societies could not have subsisted;
without such nursing fathers tender and careful of the public weal,
all governments would have sunk under the weakness and infirmities of
their infancy, and the prince and the people had soon perished
together.
As Locke points out, it is originally your parents who made that agreement with the state for you, but as you are bound to them, so are you bound to the state. Certainly then when you become of age to make your own decisions, your decision to stay a citizen of that country and accept the property and belongings willed to you by your parents upon their death, renews that tacit consent for yourself.
This is obviously not a universally held theory and as this article explains, Robert Nozick argues in Anarchy, State and Utopia Locke's mistake is assuming that the original transfer of ownership to the first father in the chain does not come with an obligation to the state, as Locke assumes. Thus, when passing it down to his son, that obligation does not persist. Furthermore, ownership allows the bearer the right to do whatever he wants with the property, and this should include taking it out of state control.
However, most modern democratic systems are based at least in part on Locke's writings, and its his idea of tacit consent at work here.
Yet state applies force to capture products of my labor or force rules on me that I do not agree with.I think you've answered your own question there