Consent plays a central role in Locke’s political theory, as described in his Second Treatise of Government. It is an integral part to how a legitimate political society can be formed, and how political obligation can arise. There is a key distinction between two types of consent, namely: express consent (that which is explicitly stated), and tacit consent (by enjoying a governments benefits, you are tacitly consenting). In this essay I will demonstrate how within Locke’s conception, consent allows the formation of government as a single body. The problems arising from this will be discussed, particularly in regards to tacit consent. Locke clearly states that any man by nature is ‘free, equal, and independent, no one can be…subjected to the …show more content…
This state is not necessarily immoral, as we are all the work of God, and thus natural law can guide our actions. The natural law can be arrived at through reason, and is in accordance with Gods’ will. The fundamental natural law is that mankind is bound to preserve itself as we are all Gods property. However, the state of nature is not the ideal place to do this, as there is no impartial authority to adjudicate disputes. This is problematic as disputes cannot truly be remedied fairly, as without a third party to adjudicate over a dispute, it is far more likely to descend into disagreement, or even violence. In order to remedy this, a group of individuals can band together and constitute themselves as a people, and then be considered a political society. Given that in the state of nature we are wholly free, how can one maintain ones liberty, while also living under government? The answer is that one can freely consent to be bound into a common united body with his kinsman. Further, this does not infringe …show more content…
The most obvious answer is express consent, that being which is explicitly stated. Whilst Locke did not give a clear cut definition of what he means as express consent, in the Second Treatise it can loosely be defined as one ‘agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.’ It seems uncontentious to suppose such an obvious display of assent to a community is ample to generate some sort of obligation to abide by its rules. One issue with this however, that Locke himself recognised, is that it is by no means fact that a group of men ever did come together in such a way. Locke responds to this by giving historical examples that might demonstrate such an agreement, such as the birth of Rome and Venice. These seem to be good examples, but they only highlight certain societies. Is it not possible that some societies were not formed in such a fashion? Perhaps by a conqueror? In which case, does this not mean that the government was not, and possibly still is not justified? Considering how central this is to Locke’s whole theory, merely speculating on the matter seems somewhat damaging. Even IF it were the case that consent of this kind had been given, it would only have been the first generation of the society that had given it. Subsequent generations have given no such consent, so how does the government maintain its legitimacy? Locke gave an answer
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that the authority of a legitimate political regime is based on the consent of free, equal, rational and reasonable persons. Locke differentiates between two forms of consent - express and tacit. Express consent is when an individual openly articulates a willingness to join the government. This makes the individual a perpetual citizen / the individual incorporates their person into the commonwealth. Those who have given express consent are unalterably subject to society and are never again at liberty as in the state of nature.
While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against
John was the most influential political philosopher of the modern period. John wrote the two treatises of government in which he defended the claims that men are by nature “free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to monarchy” (). He also, argued that the people did have rights, such as, the right to life, liberty, and property, in which they have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke also claimed that men are naturally free and equal as part of jurisdiction for understanding legitimate political government. Apparently, the government exists by the consent of the people and, that is in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, for that reason if the government fails it can be resisted and replaced with a new government.
As stated before, Locke determined that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. In chapter IX, he gave us the basic concept of government. “First, there wants an established, settled, know law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them (P. 124). This, as he described later, is the legislative branch. He goes into more detail in chapter XI. “Secondly, there wants a
To understand their views on revolt, and when it is justified, one must first review the responsibilities each believes the government to have. To Locke, the government works to preserve innate rights, that is, rights
Locke does, though, believe that there are some limitations to how much one individual may appropriate in the state of nature. Since he has already assumed as a natural law that all individuals have the right to their self-preservation, then the private appropriation of one individual must leave “enough and as
The year was sixteen hundred and eighty-nine and a man by the name of John Locke wrote Second Treatise on Government (Zinn 73). In it, Locke wrote that in a natural state everyone, all people, are born free and equal, and possess certain rights. He said that these “natural rights” were life, liberty, and property. He also said that the evildoers who conspired to deprive others of their life, liberty, or property ruined the good life of the state of nature (Locke). The only way to protect these rights is by joining together to form governments. The power of government, then, stems from the consent of the governed, which entrust the government with responsibility for protecting
Hence, the institutions and laws of civil society exist under the mandate to protect the “life, liberty, and estate” of each member. Therefore, liberty, for Locke, requires certain enabling conditions to allow it to be enjoyed, and these conditions are put in place by law.
Locke’s arguments for liberty sound familiar today, but he believed that one must choose between liberty and equality. Locke’s argument that any government which did not admit to the principles of freedom ceased to be legitimate especially appealed.
In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.
Locke’s main discussions of freedom took place in his work entitled Two Treatises on Government. These views were built upon the view of a natural state in which every individual maintained a state of natural freedom. In this natural state, each individual was free to make decisions and choose actions without any constraints. Locke felt that under this view every individual should maintain equal and independent and refrain from harming one another. However, the main problem in this concept of freedom is that fact that an individual’s free will can be constrained by the actions of another.
In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.
Locke regarded humans naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions” (Locke Two treatises ex.4). Along with this comes unbounded indulgence of the benefits of law of nature whereby men “has by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others” (Locke Two treatises ex.87). In addition, “it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society” (Locke Two treatises ex.77). Locke views that the formation of government “derive[d] from God’s will” (Dunn 2003, p. 37) and originated from men’s need to protect their property as a collective, where a common
As a result of looking through Thomas Hobbes’ view on monarchy and John Locke’s view on democracy, both perspectives provide a vast amount of information of an ideal government. In Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, chapter 11 is devoted to legislative power, which Locke identifies as the most important part of the government. Locke provides rules for this legislative power. The first is the preservation of society. No one can challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own. This power is invested in the body of the majority. In this chapter, he brings up a constant
Locke believed that people are willing to unite under a form of government to preserve their lives, liberty, and estate. Since natural law is already good, government not only preserves natural law, but also works to enhance it.