Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Core Idea

The consent theory posits that the obligation to obey the law arises from the consent of the governed. This theory, linked to thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, suggests that our duty to the state stems from our agreement to be governed by it.

Appeal of Consent

Consent is generally understood as a potent mechanism for creating obligations. Examples:

• Agreeing to provide someone a ride from the airport creates a duty.

• Consenting to medical research carries obligations (e.g., fasting).

• Joining a religious order and consenting to its rules entails specific duties.

Problems for the Consent Theory

1. Insufficient Consent:

   • Few people explicitly consent to be governed.

   • Typically, only immigrants actively consent as adults.

   • Most individuals have not considered the issue.

2. Restriction on Consent:

   • Consent generates obligation only if it can be withheld.

   • Citizens may lack a way to effectively withhold consent from the state.

   • Refusing consent by, for example, sending a letter to the government seems ineffectual.

3. Revoking Consent:

   • If consent can be revoked easily, escaping legal obligations becomes trivial.

   • The victory of establishing an obligation becomes "hollow" if it's easily dismissed.

Consent Theorist Replies

1. Expressed vs. Tacit Consent:

   • Expressed Consent: Openly and directly stating consent.

   • Tacit Consent: Consenting through actions within a context where consent is implied (e.g., entering a room knowing it implies consent to being filmed).

   • Example: If entering a classroom implies consent to being filmed, entering the classroom constitutes consent.

   • This distinction could address the issue of insufficient consent.

   • Many haven't explicitly consented, but their actions may imply tacit consent.

   • Potentially relevant actions include: voting, using public services, or remaining within the state.

2. Withholding Consent:

   • The distinction between expressed and tacit consent may help.

   • If consent is given by actions like voting or using public services, refraining from these actions could revoke consent.

3. Revoking Consent (Revisited):

   • The expressed vs tacit consent distinction may provide solution here too.

   • If consent is tied to actions such as voting or remaining in the territory, revoking it isn't so easy.

Challenges to Tacit Consent

1. Participation in Elections:

   • Low voter turnout in many democracies means many haven't tacitly consented through voting.

   • High-turnout states are often compulsory, negating the possibility of genuine consent.

2. Use of Public Services:

   • Most citizens use public services but have little choice in doing so.

   • Avoiding roads, for example, is difficult, making it hard to interpret usage as consent.

3. Remaining within the State:

   • Financial constraints or strong ties may leave people with no effective alternative to remaining.

   • Even if one leaves, they must reside in some state.

   • Thus, staying within a state may not represent genuine consent.

Conclusion

The consent theory suggests that the obligation to obey the law stems from consent to be governed. However, several problems arise, and the distinction between expressed and tacit consent doesn't fully resolve them. Next, we will consider fairness as a basis for political obligation.