Abstract
This paper is primarily a response to John Simmons’s critique of Locke’s consent theory of political obligation. It seeks to apply ordinary legal reasoning to what Locke actually says about “express consent” and “tacit consent.” The result is a theory both different from the theory commonly attributed to Locke and more plausible. Among the differences is that express consent is understood to arise chiefly from seeking to vote and tacit consent is understood as a reasonable presumption of actual consent. In the course of presenting Simmons’s critique, the paper identifies four commonly accepted criteria of adequacy for theories of moral obligation to obey law or government, noting that Locke’s theory, under its lawyerly interpretation, fails to satisfy any of the four criteria but seems reasonably plausible. This is taken to be reason to weaken all four criteria.