John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and the Limits of Our Implicit Consent to Government

In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government,of the public building without a permit. He
his entire political philosophy hinges upon the factattempts to arrest her but she explains that, as a
that humans are moral equals and thus unable tomoral equal, she never consented to join the
legitimately govern or impose rules upon anotherbody politic and thus these laws do not apply to
without that other person's consent. For Locke,her.
the perfect answer to this is entitled expressUsing the above situation, it becomes simple to
consent. According to Locke, "[n]o body doubtsapply Locke's response, tacit consent. However,
but an express consent, of any man entering intoto fully understand this issue, a counter argument
any society, makes him a perfect member ofby the protestor must be offered and tacit
that society, a subject of that government"consent must be adjusted to include her
(Locke 64). Express consent is the perfect wayarguments such that she is still bound by the
to bind the original members together. Thisnational law.
however, raises many difficulties for Locke onceAssuming that the police officer is an educated
critics begin to question how someone canman and familiar with his political philosophy,
consent to a system of government for whichspecializing in Lockean philosophy, his response
they never expressly consented or gave theirwould be a classic example of tacit consent
agreement; simply stated, they were not theapplied to life. He would start with the beginning -
founding members, and thus how can it be arguedat one point in time, a group of citizens joined
that they are legitimately ruled by thetogether to form a body politic and institute a
government? Locke's rebuttal is tacit consent, agovernment on the land now called the United
method by which any man "that hath anyStates of America. For the sake of simplifying the
possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of thesituation, one of her direct relatives was amongst
dominions of any government, doth thereby givethese first founders.
his tacit consent" to be ruled by that governmentThe police officer, his name badge proudly
(64). Though this seems to be a sound remedy,displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked the
further holes can be exposed using a hypothetical,protestor in the eye. "Look here," he said, taking
but very plausible, situation to demonstrate. Theout his copy of Second Treatise he kept in his
situation is as outlined below:pocket, "this relative took an oath to bind his land
An adult citizen who was born in this country (andto the authority of this government; ergo, he
thus never had to take an oath of citizenship)showed his express consent, for he both knew to
was disgruntled about the lack of funding forwhat he was consenting and was voluntarily
education and began protesting on the steps of aagreeing." He assumed that the woman knew her
government building. Shortly thereafter, a policephilosophy as well, but might not be as versed as
officer confronts her and informs her that shehe in Locke.
has broken the law by protesting within 100 feetBecause this protestor owned land in the state
of the public building without a permit. Hewhich was handed down from her ancestor, one
attempts to arrest her but she explains that, as aof the country's founders, she was, according to
moral equal, she never consented to join theLocke, a subject of the government as a result.
body politic and thus these laws do not apply toAs Locke states, a person who "enjoys any part
her.of the land [...] under the government of that
Using the above situation, it becomes simple tocommon-wealth, must take it with the condition it
apply Locke's response, tacit consent. However,is under; that is, of submitting to the government
to fully understand this issue, a counter argumentof the common-wealth" (64). Furthermore,
by the protestor must be offered and tacitbecause this woman is partaking in the services
consent must be adjusted to include heroffered by the government, she is giving her tacit
arguments such that she is still bound by theconsent to be ruled by that government. For
national law.Locke, even "lodging only for a week" in a
Assuming that the police officer is an educatedcountry is a satisfactory condition under which
man and familiar with his political philosophy,tacit consent may be derived (64). Because she is
specializing in Lockean philosophy, his responsean adult and a citizen, it is safe to assume that
would be a classic example of tacit consentshe has used the public roads, post office, or
applied to life. He would start with the beginning -other public services before and at the time of
at one point in time, a group of citizens joinedher first use, she gave her tacit consent.
together to form a body politic and institute aDarryl looked up at the woman. He continued to
government on the land now called the Unitedexplain to her why she was violating the law. "Is
States of America. For the sake of simplifying thethat your car over there?" he asked. She nodded.
situation, one of her direct relatives was amongst"Well, I know you used the public road system to
these first founders.get here and you even deposited money into the
The police officer, his name badge proudlymeter. Because these are provided by the
displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked thegovernment, you used the government's services
protestor in the eye. "Look here," he said, takingand gave your tacit consent. Locke says it right
out his copy of Second Treatise he kept in hishere," he stated, pointing halfway down page 64
pocket, "this relative took an oath to bind his landin his book. "No one forced you to use the road
to the authority of this government; ergo, hesystem to get here, nor did they force you to
showed his express consent, for he both knew topay for the meter. You did that voluntarily. You
what he was consenting and was voluntarilyknew to what you were consenting when you
agreeing." He assumed that the woman knew herused these goods. I am sorry, but you are in
philosophy as well, but might not be as versed asviolation of a law that very much applies to you."
he in Locke.Despite these solid conditions upon which Locke
Because this protestor owned land in the statebuilds his concept of tacit consent, there are flaws
which was handed down from her ancestor, onethat can be exploited in some situations. In
of the country's founders, she was, according toaddition, Locke does not give clear provisions for
Locke, a subject of the government as a result.revoking one's consent, only conditions in which
As Locke states, a person who "enjoys any partone's consent contract is nullified. One of the
of the land [...] under the government of thatmany possible flaws of tacit consent would be if
common-wealth, must take it with the condition itshe did not know the full extent to what she was
is under; that is, of submitting to the governmentconsenting. Another flaw along this line would be if
of the common-wealth" (64). Furthermore,she did not know she was consenting; both are
because this woman is partaking in the servicessufficient, once proved to be true, to show that
offered by the government, she is giving her tacitshe did not and would not have consented to the
consent to be ruled by that government. Forgovernment if given a chance. If she wanted to
Locke, even "lodging only for a week" in aleave the country but did not have the funds
country is a satisfactory condition under whichavailable to do so, she would be in effect
tacit consent may be derived (64). Because she iswithdrawing her express consent and therefore
an adult and a citizen, it is safe to assume thatone cannot assume that she had indeed
she has used the public roads, post office, orconsented if she expressly did not.
other public services before and at the time ofJill, the woman, looked at Darryl and sighed. "Like
her first use, she gave her tacit consent.everyone else, aren't you? Too caught up in what
Darryl looked up at the woman. He continued toLocke says to understand that there are critical
explain to her why she was violating the law. "Isflaws. I have no money right now but I want to
that your car over there?" he asked. She nodded.leave this country as soon as I am able to. I
"Well, I know you used the public road system tofurthermore, here and now, renounce my
get here and you even deposited money into theconsent to be ruled by this government. I am out
meter. Because these are provided by theof here as soon as possible," Jill stated, stomping
government, you used the government's servicesher foot for emphasis. She turned to leave, but
and gave your tacit consent. Locke says it rightDarryl stopped her. "Let me go!" she exclaimed.
here," he stated, pointing halfway down page 64"As a moral equal to you, you have no right to
in his book. "No one forced you to use the roadimpose your laws on me. I do not consent to be
system to get here, nor did they force you togoverned by your state or you. As a moral equal,
pay for the meter. You did that voluntarily. YouI demand that you let me go," Jill said, twisting her
knew to what you were consenting when youarm free of Darryl's grasp.
used these goods. I am sorry, but you are inBecause Locke does not seem to give much
violation of a law that very much applies to you."thought to citizens renouncing their consent, there
Despite these solid conditions upon which Lockeis not much textual evidence for the process
builds his concept of tacit consent, there are flawsthrough which this is done. However, it is possible
that can be exploited in some situations. Into surmise, by reversing the express consent
addition, Locke does not give clear provisions forprocess that one can knowingly and voluntarily
revoking one's consent, only conditions in whichremove their consent to be governed by the
one's consent contract is nullified. One of thebody politic. However, the protestor could bring up
many possible flaws of tacit consent would be ifa critical point to which Locke does not seem to
she did not know the full extent to what she washave ever imagined would happen. If a citizen
consenting. Another flaw along this line would be ifwishes to leave the state, but does not have the
she did not know she was consenting; both aremoney to do so, what would happen if the citizen
sufficient, once proved to be true, to show thatrenounced their consent? Locke lauds his
she did not and would not have consented to themonetary system as allowing for people to take
government if given a chance. If she wanted towhat is needed and to diffuse the moderate
leave the country but did not have the fundsscarcity in the world. However, it appears that
available to do so, she would be in effectLocke did not consider what would happen in a
withdrawing her express consent and thereforefully monetized economy - it would be impossible
one cannot assume that she had indeedto take anything because everything would
consented if she expressly did not.already be claimed by some other citizen mixing
Jill, the woman, looked at Darryl and sighed. "Liketheir labor with it. If, like in this case, the citizen
everyone else, aren't you? Too caught up in whathad no money at all, they would be unable to
Locke says to understand that there are criticalpartake of this rationing system devised and
flaws. I have no money right now but I want towould be essentially forced to stay where they
leave this country as soon as I am able to. Iwere. Thus, a catch-22 arises - the citizen does
furthermore, here and now, renounce mynot want to stay and cannot use the system in
consent to be ruled by this government. I am outplace because they do not consent, but they
of here as soon as possible," Jill stated, stompingcannot leave because the only mode to leave
her foot for emphasis. She turned to leave, butrequires using the system by paying money.
Darryl stopped her. "Let me go!" she exclaimed.Indeed, it gives the impression that Locke's
"As a moral equal to you, you have no right toconsent system has an insurmountable flaw in it,
impose your laws on me. I do not consent to bean inherent catch-22 to keep people locked in the
governed by your state or you. As a moral equal,system even though it deprives them of their
I demand that you let me go," Jill said, twisting herright as moral equals to not be governed by a law
arm free of Darryl's grasp.to which they did not voluntarily submit.
Because Locke does not seem to give muchDarryl grabbed the woman again and told her that
thought to citizens renouncing their consent, thereshe would be resisting arrest if she attempted to
is not much textual evidence for the processleave a second time. "You obviously didn't read
through which this is done. However, it is possiblethe latest edition of Philosophy Illustrated, did
to surmise, by reversing the express consentyou?" he questioned. "If you had, you would know
process that one can knowingly and voluntarilyabout hypothetical consent. If you leave now, turn
remove their consent to be governed by thethe corner, and get robbed, would you prefer me
body politic. However, the protestor could bring upto chase down the robber and protect you or
a critical point to which Locke does not seem towould you prefer that I stand by and chuckle at
have ever imagined would happen. If a citizenyour misfortune? Of course you would prefer me
wishes to leave the state, but does not have theto protect you! It makes sense; it is reasonable
money to do so, what would happen if the citizenunder those circumstances to assume that you
renounced their consent? Locke lauds hiswould want protection," Darryl said, gasping for a
monetary system as allowing for people to takebreath after his monologue. "And that, right there,
what is needed and to diffuse the moderateis hypothetical consent."
scarcity in the world. However, it appears thatThough hypothetical consent is never directly
Locke did not consider what would happen in amentioned in Locke's work, it is easy to derive
fully monetized economy - it would be impossiblefrom his argument of tacit consent, specifically
to take anything because everything wouldfrom the notion that the state of nature, though
already be claimed by some other citizen mixinghumane, is not as good as a body politic; because
their labor with it. If, like in this case, the citizenit is better to be part of a body politic than not, it
had no money at all, they would be unable tois plausible to assume that a person would
partake of this rationing system devised andconsent to be ruled by a body politic and gain the
would be essentially forced to stay where theybenefits thereof rather than not. Hypothetical
were. Thus, a catch-22 arises - the citizen doesconsent is the notion that it is reasonable to treat
not want to stay and cannot use the system ina person as if they had given their consent
place because they do not consent, but theybecause it is the most reasonable course of
cannot leave because the only mode to leaveaction that all people would do if they knew they
requires using the system by paying money.could, were able to consent, and were reasonable.
Indeed, it gives the impression that Locke'sIt is important to note that this hinges on an
consent system has an insurmountable flaw in it,assumption and it is not a form of actual consent.
an inherent catch-22 to keep people locked in theIn the case of the protestor, it makes sense that
system even though it deprives them of theirshe would submit herself to the laws of the
right as moral equals to not be governed by a lawgovernment and, in return, reap the reward of
to which they did not voluntarily submit.protected rights to life and property, ensured
Darryl grabbed the woman again and told her thatliberty, and access to better healthcare, thus
she would be resisting arrest if she attempted toimproving her right to health. Because of the
leave a second time. "You obviously didn't readobvious benefits that outweigh any small negative
the latest edition of Philosophy Illustrated, didside effects, it is not possible, for Locke, to
you?" he questioned. "If you had, you would knowunderstand why she would not consent to this
about hypothetical consent. If you leave now, turngovernment. Furthermore, one cannot argue that
the corner, and get robbed, would you prefer meshe does not possess a right state of mind to
to chase down the robber and protect you orconsent. As an adult protesting a situation, it is
would you prefer that I stand by and chuckle atplausible to conclude that she is educated to some
your misfortune? Of course you would prefer medegree and would give her consent to better
to protect you! It makes sense; it is reasonableprotect her natural rights. Additionally, because she
under those circumstances to assume that youis an adult and not mentally handicapped, an
would want protection," Darryl said, gasping for aassumption based on the fact that she is taking
breath after his monologue. "And that, right there,an active role as an outspoken citizen, she is able
is hypothetical consent."to consent. Finally, because she is able to reason
Though hypothetical consent is never directlywith the police officer, she must be a reasonable
mentioned in Locke's work, it is easy to deriveperson and therefore fulfills the final stipulation for
from his argument of tacit consent, specificallyhypothetical consent.
from the notion that the state of nature, thoughLocke fashions a strong system for consent and
humane, is not as good as a body politic; becausewith the addition of hypothetical consent, it
it is better to be part of a body politic than not, itbecomes nearly impossible for a sane person to
is plausible to assume that a person wouldargue that they are not bound to obey the laws
consent to be ruled by a body politic and gain theof a state in which they are living. Though some
benefits thereof rather than not. Hypotheticalwould argue that this presents problems with
consent is the notion that it is reasonable to treatwithdrawing consent, Locke makes it clear that
a person as if they had given their consentdissenting opinions should be expressed through
because it is the most reasonable course ofthe legal channels made available with the creation
action that all people would do if they knew theyof the government. Whether express, tacit, or
could, were able to consent, and were reasonable.hypothetical, it is clear that Locke leaves no
It is important to note that this hinges on anexcuse for not consenting available to citizens.
assumption and it is not a form of actual consent.The body politic is better than a state of nature;
In the case of the protestor, it makes sense thatall must realize this and agree.
she would submit herself to the laws of theDarryl took Jill by the arm and escorted her into
government and, in return, reap the reward ofthe back of his squad car. "I'm sorry for this, but
protected rights to life and property, ensuredyou are bound by our laws. You seem like a
liberty, and access to better healthcare, thussmart person, hopefully you will find a way to
improving her right to health. Because of thecommunicate your problems legally once you pay
obvious benefits that outweigh any small negativethe penalty for breaking the law," Darryl said,
side effects, it is not possible, for Locke, toclosing the back door of his squad car. He drove
understand why she would not consent to thisthe two of them towards the police station,
government. Furthermore, one cannot argue thatsmiling that he was actually able to apply his
she does not possess a right state of mind torecent philosophy course to his job.protesting a
consent. As an adult In John Locke's Secondsituation, it is plausible to conclude that she is
Treatise of Government, his entire politicaleducated to some degree and would give her
philosophy hinges upon the fact that humans areconsent to better protect her natural rights.
moral equals and thus unable to legitimatelyAdditionally, because she is an adult and not
govern or impose rules upon another without thatmentally handicapped, an assumption based on the
other person's consent. For Locke, the perfectfact that she is taking an active role as an
answer to this is entitled express consent.outspoken citizen, she is able to consent. Finally,
According to Locke, "[n]o body doubts but anbecause she is able to reason with the police
express consent, of any man entering into anyofficer, she must be a reasonable person and
society, makes him a perfect member of thattherefore fulfills the final stipulation for hypothetical
society, a subject of that government" (Lockeconsent.
64). Express consent is the perfect way to bindLocke fashions a strong system for consent and
the original members together. This however,with the addition of hypothetical consent, it
raises many difficulties for Locke once criticsbecomes nearly impossible for a sane person to
begin to question how someone can consent to aargue that they are not bound to obey the laws
system of government for which they neverof a state in which they are living. Though some
expressly consented or gave their agreement;would argue that this presents problems with
simply stated, they were not the foundingwithdrawing consent, Locke makes it clear that
members, and thus how can it be argued thatdissenting opinions should be expressed through
they are legitimately ruled by the government?the legal channels made available with the creation
Locke's rebuttal is tacit consent, a method byof the government. Whether express, tacit, or
which any man "that hath any possessions, orhypothetical, it is clear that Locke leaves no
enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of anyexcuse for not consenting available to citizens.
government, doth thereby give his tacit consent"The body politic is better than a state of nature;
to be ruled by that government (64). Though thisall must realize this and agree.
seems to be a sound remedy, further holes canDarryl took Jill by the arm and escorted her into
be exposed using a hypothetical, but verythe back of his squad car. "I'm sorry for this, but
plausible, situation to demonstrate. The situation isyou are bound by our laws. You seem like a
as outlined below:smart person, hopefully you will find a way to
An adult citizen who was born in this country (andcommunicate your problems legally once you pay
thus never had to take an oath of citizenship)the penalty for breaking the law," Darryl said,
was disgruntled about the lack of funding forclosing the back door of his squad car. He drove
education and began protesting on the steps of athe two of them towards the police station,
government building. Shortly thereafter, a policesmiling that he was actually able to apply his
officer confronts her and informs her that sherecent philosophy course to his job.
has broken the law by protesting within 100 feet