Sabine animated the concept of her status as a political myth in Hume by referring to Thomas Hill Green. Green wrote that the government “does not need willpower” for the administration. As Sabine argued,:731 Philip Pettit (born 1945) in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997) argues that the theory of the social contract, which is based on the consent of the governed, should be changed. Instead of arguing for explicit consent, which is always possible, Pettit argues that the absence of effective rebellion is the only legitimacy of a treaty. [The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: each of us places his person and all his power under the highest direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.  Hume argued that the approval of the governed was the ideal basis on which a government should rest, but that in general it did not happen in this way. The theory of the hypothetical approval of the governed says that the obligation to obey the government depends on whether the government must be approved or whether the people, if placed in a state of nature without government, would approve of that government.  This theory has been rejected by some scholars who argue that, since the government can commit aggression itself, the creation of a government to protect the people from aggression would be similar to men if they had the choice of animals by which they should be attacked by exchanging “polecats and foxes for a lion”,a trade, that they would not do.  Even the most powerful and despotic government cannot maintain a society united by violence; To this extent, there was a truth limited to the ancient belief that governments are produced by approval. Like no party, it can support itself in our time without a philosophical or speculative system of principles attached to its political or practical system; So we find that each of the factions between which this nation is divided has put in place a fabric of first nature to protect and cover the pattern of action it pursues. . One of the parties [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings or Tories], by withdrawing the government from the deity, strives to make it so sacred and inviolable that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may be, to touch it or invade it in the smallest article.