1 Political authority and obligation Political authority and obligation

Political authority and obligation 17
reasonably challenge the hypothetical consent theorist to explain why we should care what
it would be rational for us to do, when, in reality, we might prefer to act irrationally. If the
hypothetical consent theorist replies along the lines of, ‘Because it is in your best interests
to do what it is rational to do’, then it looks like his or her argument for political authority
and obligation appeals to the benefi ts that the state brings, rather than on the moral importance
of consent. But if the hypothetical consent theorist’s argument relies ultimately on the
benefi ts that the state brings, then the hypothetical consent seems to drop out of the picture—that
is, we might as well seek to justify political obligation and authority by direct
reference to the benefi ts that the state brings. In the next section, we will look at precisely
this possibility.
KEY POINTS
● Consent theorists claim that we should obey the law, because we have consented to do so.
● Modern consent theorists rely on the Lockean notion of tacit consent. Tacit consent has been
interpreted in different ways, but is most usefully interpreted as consent by doing something
that you would not otherwise be permitted to do, because someone has a right that you not
do that thing without thereby consenting.
● Some consent theorists argue that residence in a geographical territory counts as tacit consent
to obey the law. One objection to this claim says that we are not free enough to leave our
country of birth for our residence to count as effective consent. Another objection suggests
that residing on one’s own land is not a prohibited act and cannot therefore count as tacit
consent.
● Some consent theorists argue that voting in a democratic election counts as tacit consent
to obey the law. But as long as those who do not vote are forced to obey the law despite
their abstention, it seems reasonable to treat voting as coerced, and therefore ineffective,
consent.
● Hypothetical consent theorists argue that we would consent to set up a state and obey the
law if the state did not already exist. The diffi culty for hypothetical consent theorists is to
explain why it should matter morally what we would do, rather than what we have, in fact,
done.
Utilitarianism
One reason to think that we should obey the law regardless of the presence or absence of
consent is that obedience to the law allows the state to exist and that the existence of the
state brings many benefi ts. We have roads down which to drive, police to keep the peace
within our borders, and armies to protect our borders. Some of us a re lucky enough to
enjoy access to free or heavily subsidized health care and education. Are these benefi ts not
themselves suffi cient justifi cation for political authority and obligation?
Th e answer to this question is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. For those who want to act in ways that
benefi t society, the benefi ts that the state brings will provide a reason to obey the law. But