How does rational consent help justify political authority in social-contract theory?

In social-contract theory, rational consent serves as the foundational mechanism for justifying political authority by framing government as a voluntary obligation that reasonable individuals would choose to accept.1

By comparing the disadvantages of a lawless state of nature with the benefits of organized society, theorists argue that rational agents would logically agree to surrender certain freedoms to a central authority in exchange for security, peace, or the protection of natural rights. This consent transforms the state from an arbitrary power into a legitimate institution, as it is grounded in the self-interest and rational judgment of the governed.21

The role of consent varies by philosopher:
* Thomas Hobbes argued that rational individuals, seeking to escape a miserable state of war, would consent to an absolute sovereign to ensure their survival.321
* John Locke posited that consent is conditional; individuals agree to form a government specifically to protect their rights to life, liberty, and property, and authority remains legitimate only so long as it fulfills this purpose.21
* Modern theorists, such as John Rawls, utilize "hypothetical consent," where the legitimacy of political principles is based on what rational agents would choose under specified, idealized conditions.32