d completely disrupt lives, which goes against conditions 4 and 5, even if the person could afford financially to do so, or if the government were to assist him in doing so.
However, as Simmons points out, the most important things a man has in life are tied to his country of residence and he cannot take them with him - his home, extended family and friends (Simmons 98). Even if he disagrees with the state, if it is utterly tyrannical, he may still want to live there for these reasons. Emigration, says Simmons, has sufficiently unpleasant consequences to make any formal political choice fail condition 5. Therefore, continued residence cannot be considered tacit consent
Klosko is in agreement with Simmons on issues regarding tacit consent, not believing it necessarily means political obligation (Klosko 58). For instance, in the act of voting, people often vote more to prevent a candidate they don't want from getting elected than because they agree with what the government represents. He believes we must look more at the intent of the person perfo
...