Consent theory claims that political legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed.
The theory has been marginalized in political philosophy due to the success of Hume’s
objections, which observe that consent theory entails anarchism, as almost nobody
has consented to be governed. However, these standard objections leave the foundations
of consent theory untouched; the consent theorist, confident in the appeal of these
foundations, can endorse anarchism in response. This article offers an objection that
focuses on what makes consent normatively appealing in the first place, the value
of individual autonomy. On almost any plausible reading of that foundation, one should
not be a consent theorist.
