POLITICAL OBLIGATION:
- obeying the law bc it's the law (not for individual moral reasons bc then would only obey particular laws)
- argument: if humans are free + equal, why should we be bound by the law? shouldn't we be able to do what we want?
- philosophers: we must have agreed to obey the state i.e. we must have given consent somehow, thus giving us political obligation.

EXPLICIT:
- literally/overtly agreeing to set up a government and to follow it's rules -> P.O.
- only relevant to first ever generation
- later generations born into it
- established society = no P.O. if it rests on explicit consent
----could argue voting = form of E.C -  BUT voting for an oppositional party to the winning party = not consenting the winner
- E.C. = if i say 'i do not consent' then i have no P.O.

TACIT:
- locke: implied consent -> this is gained through utilising what the state owns/offers -> e.g. simply living in a place means i give tacit consent
HOWEVER: hume: what about those who don't have the choice/money to leave the country? e.g. a peasant. implausible to say this is still giving consent
- doesn't make sense = me walking on a street means i give consent? meaningless if citizens aren't aware of it or don't know what it means
VOTING tacit consent: in a way YES bc voting means voluntarily take part in system -> agreeing to play by the rules
- NO: what about revolutionary vote? a party which promises revolution thus abolition of the state -> if they don't win then surely i don't necessarily give my consent?

HYPOTHETICAL:
- where consent is given if it would be rational to do so
- SO in state of nature it is argued that it's rational to obey the law
HOWEVER:
- just bc rational in SoN doesn't make it rational now - completely different circumstances.. irrelevant point to make
- ALSO just bc it's rational doesn't mean i do? maybe i am irrational. -> i should have freedom to choose however i want