Consent of the governed is an important aspect of many theories of political philosophy. One of the questions that is often brought up is whether tacit consent (not refusing consent, but not necessarily consenting) should qualify as consent. If it doesn't, is it right for the state to have authority over people who don't explicitly consent, but also don't refuse consent (which is not necessarily because they don't want to refuse, but could also be because they don't feel they have an efficient manner in which to refuse or that it would mean nothing if the did)?