Consent Theory

I have not consented to being ruled by any state. Neither have you. Nor has almost anyone.

An important part of a lot of justifications of state action is that we have consented to the state doing whatever it is doing. Even Locke argues for consent theory.

There are two types of consent theory: 'Direct' consent theory, and tacit consent theory.

Direct consent theory is when someone actually directly consents to being ruled by a state, by making some sort of public declaration or signing a contract or something. This more or less never happens. There are a few possible isolated examples; I think ancient Athens had some system of consenting when someone got to the age of adulthood. It could be argued that if someone emigrates to a state that is direct consent, since they could have chosen to live elsewhere. I disagree with this interpretation, because it presumes that living outside of the rule of a state is actually possible, which it pretty much isn't in today's world. If I gave you three options: To give me £5, £10, or £100, and made it such that you literally couldn't choose any other option, then it would be hardly fair to say that you 'consented' to giving me £5. That is the situation with emigration; we can choose (to a degree) which state rules us, but not whether we are ruled. But suppose that there were places we could live which weren't ruled by a state; would emigration to somewhere other than that place indicate consent? This comes under tacit consent theory, for a reason I will explain now

Tacit consent theory argues that by doing some action - living in the geographical boundaries of the state most of the time - we are consenting to the state's rule. By not moving elsewhere (perhaps moving to the imaginary space which is not occupied by a state), we are consenting to the state.
It is true that there are times when 'silence' - not saying or doing anything - constitutes consent. Imagine a board meeting. The chair says, "Ok, next week we will meet at 3pm, any problems?" Here we would say that not saying anything constitutes consent. It wouldn't be a fair defence if you didn't show to the next meeting because you "never agreed to it". Your silence was your consent.
But we can put some constraints on the extent to which silence means consent. Firstly, expressing dissent must not be very difficult to do. If the chair of the meeting said, "Ok, next week will meet at 3pm. If you have any problems with this, complete this scrambled Rubix Cube to indicate so.", we wouldn't think that 'silence' (of not completing the Rubix Cube) meant that you agreed to the time.
The second constraint is that expressing dissent must not be very costly to you. If the chair of the meeting said, "Ok, next week we will meet at 3pm. If you have any problems with this, chop of your left arm.", it would not be fair to say that 'silence' constituted consent.

Both of these conditions of silence as consent are violated in the case of living in the state in question. If tacit consent theory was true, then in order to express my dissent against living in the state, I would have to leave the country, which is likely to be both costly and difficult. Even if there was somewhere to move where there was no state, I would likely lose my job, have to sell my house, and be away from friends and family. That is far too costly to constitute consent.

Some other methods of consent are sometimes suggested. For example, my decision to vote (or not) means that I consent to the government, since I had a chance to vote for them. Again this has the problem of "Give me £5/£10/£100" - you are only choosing between parties, you aren't consenting to governments generally. For whoever wins the election, the government stays in power.

Thus, I conclude that consent theory fails. I have not consented to the government of Great Britain.