If a state has political authority, which essentially is the right to govern, then its correlative would be political obligation, the obligations of the citizens to obey the political authority. If someone has political obligation then someone is consenting to be governed. However, how does one go about consenting to be governed? There are two ways which Harry Beran explains. The first being explicit consent in which one would outwardly agree to be governed. Naturalized citizens go through a ceremony where they agree to be governed. After that agreement occurs naturalized citizens are under the obligation to obey the state. However, what if you are a natural born citizen? Natural born citizens do not go through any ceremony where they agree to the rules and regulations of the state. They are said to have implicit consent. Beran argues that once a minor becomes adults they implicitly accept political obligation. These types of agreements can be seen as promissory obligations because agreeing to do something and promising to do something is the same thing. Beran also goes on to say that promissory obligations are moral obligations. Implicit consent also involves not only the agreement to be governed but also the absence of refusal. If John is in a meeting at work and his boss asks all of the employees if they could change a given meeting to Tuesday instead of Wednesday and no one speaks up, then John has tacitly agreed to attend the meeting on Wednesday. The same can be said for political obligation, citizen X tacitly agrees to be under political obligations by not leaving the state, hence if they do no emigrate. However, what about people who are too poor to leave the state, Beran says that if they openly (and in front of a group of people) say "I refute political obligation" then that would absolve them of any political obligation.
             ...