This is a philosophical question that ultimately proved difficult to answer. I think this is due to the complexity of the theory of consent. For a theory that strongly emphasizes autonomy and freedom, the most obvious basis for legitimate political authority should be some form of voluntary, self-assumed obligation. However, some philosophers such as John Locke and Charles Beitz argue that tacit consent can ground the obligation to obey state law, while others, such as Hanna Pitkin and David Hume, refute this argument by believing that tacit consent is not sufficient to found a political obligation. Simply put, having an obligation means something one is required to do for legal or moral reasons. Therefore, “to have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one’s country or state.” Theoretically, there are three types of consent; Tacit, express and hypothetical and based on the principles of theories of consent, I do not argue that consent explains our obligation to obey the law in the practical world. My reasons would be explained constructively during this essay. My intention in this article is to highlight how different modes of expressing consent are insufficient to explain our obligation to obey state law by interpreting and evaluating the flaws in the types of consent. My goal is to show that theories of actual consent cannot work, because there is no common basis for actual consent to obey the law. Although most people assume that their obligation to obey state laws is explained by a practical basis for their consent, I say that if people morally agree with state laws, they obey it. Theories of consent do not necessarily explain the motive...... middle of paper ...... the voter's intention as expressed by their vote renders their vote meaningless as a form of consent. It could also be that false promises were made to citizens by the participants in the election and that these “potential consenters” were thus misled. It is therefore not possible that voting for a supposedly legitimate government that acts contrary to what it promised shows that by voting, people are consenting to lies of which they know nothing. Again, this does not meet John Simmons' conditions of making the potential consenter aware of what they are consenting to. CONCLUSIONTo conclude, I disagree that voting and staying in the country are plausible. They do not meet the conditions of the consent theory. I believe that if there is an absence of free choice for potential consenters, there is an absence of any possible explanation for the obligation to obey the law..