In order for a state to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, all individuals within the state must be able to give their consent, willingly and autonomously, knowing that to do so, is to incur certain political obligations to said state. They must also understand that in doing so, they also authorise certain actions of the state towards them. In the case of consenting to the UK state, these obligations are mostly in the form of an agreement to obey the law, and the acceptance of any sanctions/punishments the state may consider fit. This essay will argue that the UK cannot derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, as there is no way for the governed to truly give their consent to be obligated to the state.
…show more content…
Tacit consent is accepted as the most nuanced consent theory and is the idea that consent is given through the presence or absence of certain actions. It contrasts to express consent, in which a direct, explicit response is given to indicate consent. Consent is said to be tacit when “it is given by remaining silent and inactive” (Simmons 1976 p. 279). Tacit consent for Simmons (1976), therefore, is distinguished by the way it is expressed. This is the factor that makes Tacit consent a much more likely basis for the UK’s just powers than express consent. Whereas express consent is flawed in its attempt to explain states such as the UK, which have no established system to allow each citizen to give a direct explicit response, tacit consent (as established by Locke) is a possibility for the basis of the UK’s just …show more content…
The inescapable nature of Tacit Consent also undermines the very premise of consent as a theory. In order for our consent to carry moral force and to fit the definition of consent, we must be able to withdraw it. In order for consent to be valid it must be able to be withdrawn, if it cannot be withdrawn then it becomes compulsory and therefore not an autonomous choice.Locke’s definition of consent makes the withdrawing of it almost impossible. If simply living in a state is enough to say that we have consented, then there seems to be no way for individuals to avoid consenting. In this way, the moral force of the consent is weakened, as the choice to consent has not been made autonomously by the individual. Consent theory is an attempt to reconcile the tension between autonomy and authority, and yet this inability to avoid consenting seems to undo that. Tacit consent therefore can barely be called consent, and if no consent exists it cannot be the basis for the UK states just
Tacit consent is accepted as the most nuanced consent theory and is the idea that consent is given through the presence or absence of certain actions. It contrasts to express consent, in which a direct, explicit response is given to indicate consent. Consent is said to be tacit when “it is given by remaining silent and inactive” (Simmons 1976 p. 279). Tacit consent for Simmons (1976), therefore, is distinguished by the way it is expressed. This is the factor that makes Tacit consent a much more likely basis for the UK’s just powers than express consent. Whereas express consent is flawed in its attempt to explain states such as the UK, which have no established system to allow each citizen to give a direct explicit response, tacit consent (as established by Locke) is a possibility for the basis of the UK’s just …show more content…
The inescapable nature of Tacit Consent also undermines the very premise of consent as a theory. In order for our consent to carry moral force and to fit the definition of consent, we must be able to withdraw it. In order for consent to be valid it must be able to be withdrawn, if it cannot be withdrawn then it becomes compulsory and therefore not an autonomous choice.Locke’s definition of consent makes the withdrawing of it almost impossible. If simply living in a state is enough to say that we have consented, then there seems to be no way for individuals to avoid consenting. In this way, the moral force of the consent is weakened, as the choice to consent has not been made autonomously by the individual. Consent theory is an attempt to reconcile the tension between autonomy and authority, and yet this inability to avoid consenting seems to undo that. Tacit consent therefore can barely be called consent, and if no consent exists it cannot be the basis for the UK states just