Using the instance of a restaurant as an implicit contract implying that all implicit contracts are valid, even one-sided ones assumed by the state, without agreement of any sort.
The restaurant example is void. It is clearly private property; private individuals that have obtained it voluntarily own the food you eat; its price is on the menu; and to walk out without paying is merely stealing, so it is obvious that the owner must be compensated in some fashion. On the other hand, the state owns nothing legitimately, so is owed no money for anything. (DBR)
Do you even know how to make an analogy? Going in to a restaurant and requesting their services is an explicit acceptance that you will pay for those services. Your analogy might work if there was one restaurant that used violence to force all other restaurants out of business and then required me to eat there for dinner every night. (JG)