> Yes because that would still be a crime. Expanding on your analogy - if I declare right now that it's ok to murder me, it's still not ok to come and murder me.
The comparison to murder doesn't work because you can't consent to murder, but you can consent to theft.
It's not clear to me whether that situation would be taken as consent, but unless you know something I don't, it probably shouldn't be clear to you either.
I mean, legally, what happens is not "consenting to theft". Unlike say assault, which you can consent to, and legally speaking an assault actually happens but consent makes it okay; but with theft, if you consent what happens is not legally theft. (IANAL, but this is my recollection from law A-levels.)
But that distinction is irrelevant here. The point is that there's basically no way for someone to deliberately kill someone and have it not be a crime. But there are ways for someone to take someone else's stuff and have it not be a crime, and one way is if the owner consents.
Under US law, I think that's probably true, but a) it's not what I was talking about, and b) I don't think you should be as confident as you seem to be.
The comparison to murder doesn't work because you can't consent to murder, but you can consent to theft.
It's not clear to me whether that situation would be taken as consent, but unless you know something I don't, it probably shouldn't be clear to you either.