Political

The state is not just a mere territory that is defined in a border. It involves a formal authority asserting power over the people in the territory for various aims. There is always a debate about whether we have an obligation to obey the state’s commands. In my opinion, consent theory is a plausible theory to explain the obligation to obey the state. Most of the critics are against consent theory because it is much relied on tacit consent and it is always a question about whether tacit consent does take place or not. In my point of view, tacit consent does take place and it works as complementary of express consent instead of its substation in some situations. This essay will be divided into two parts. Part A will briefly explain about the three types of consent theory, which are express consent, tacit consent and hypothetical consent. Later in Part B, I will give some examples and arguments to support my ground, which will focus more on how both express and tacit consents take place together instead of hypothetical consent. This is because express and tacit consents are more plausible to explain the obligation to obey the state’s command.

Part A

An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is required to do something and not to do something. Consent theory is a good ground to explain how this obligation to be formed among the people. In general, consent must be carried out in voluntary instead of by force. There are three types of consent.

Firstly, express consent is when a direct response or an explicit action is given to show the consent. For example, when I reply the email from my manager to agree to have a special meeting this Friday, this shows my express consent and I have an obligation to be at the meeting on Friday.

Tacit consent is when a consent is given by remaining silent and inactive. For example, if there is no announcement to cancel the weekly meeting on Thursday, I am obliged to attend the meeting as an employee unless a valid...