That consent could wholly explain – either descriptively or normatively – the legitimacy of the structure of political community and it’s most important and influential institutions and practices is deeply implausible. There are two general sorts of considerations adduced against such a proposition. First, history simply refutes it: force is an essential feature of the founding of any political society, and arguably, for its continued existence, and power relations, in all their complexity, are imperfectly tracked by consent. Moreover, there are (...) deep questions about what people are actually consenting to, given the plurality and changing nature of political collectivities over time. Second, in modern societies (perhaps in just any complex human society) our conduct is shaped and governed in so many ways so as to influence not only the options we have, but also the interests, desires and capabilities constitutive of our ability to act in relation to them in the first place. This undermines any easy connection between the presence of consent and my being free. A familiar conundrum for consent as a standard of legitimacy is that if it means literally that individual consent is required for non-arbitrariness in public decision-making, then public decision-making – indeed almost any form of collective action –becomes almost impossible. If only tacit or implicit consent is required, then we can find it everywhere, and thus nowhere, and the standard is empty. (shrink)

One way in which liberal theories have argued for the legitimacy of the state is by means of a principle of implicit consent. Since Hume, critics have argued that the price of dissent would be too high for such a strategy to be successful. Some theorists have replied that the high price involved in not agreeing to do something does not need to be a defeating condition of consenting. Other theorists have proposed institutional reforms which will diminish the costs of (...) dissenting. In this paper, it is argued that the failure of an implicit consent approach is more fundamental than what this debate seems to suggest. (shrink)

The problem I have in mind is the problem of the possible justification of subjecting one's will to that of another, and of the normative standing of demands to do so. The account of authority that I offered, many years ago, under the title of the service conception of authority, addressed this issue, and assumed that all other problems regarding authority are subsumed under it. Many found the account implausible. It is thin, relying on very few ideas. It may well (...) appear to be too thin, and to depart too far from many of the ideas that have gained currency in the history of reflection on authority. The present article modifies some aspects the account, and defends it against some criticism made against it. (shrink)