Essay on John Locke on Tacit and Unintended Consent

Locke and Jefferson have different ways of evaluating government than the Ayn Rand Institute. Both philosophers believe certain rights are inalienable to all of men, but when government starts to renege on its original intent, people as a whole may come together and overthrow the government. For Locke government starts with a civil association, or a group of like-minded people who want to protect themselves from the dangers that could potentially arise in the state of nature. Each individual that enters into civil society consents and the basis of authority is the determination of the people as a whole, better known as popular sovereignty. Back in Locke’s time it was commonly held that popular sovereignty would lead to chaos and frequent rebellion. In spite of this, Locke argues that popular sovereignty is the best guarantee against unwarranted rebellion since the population would collectively determine the appropriate remedy. Locke reasons that if the decision to revolt were left up to the individual that it would “unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.” To support collectivism, Locke says as long as the society lasts the power each individual relinquished upon entering does not revert back to the individual. Therefore, even though the government has collapsed the “commonwealth [is] still preserved” and the notion of popular sovereignty remains intact. Another strong piece to add to this counterargument would be to discuss Locke’s ideas on the individual right to punish. Since there is no common authority in the state of nature, Locke holds that individuals have the right to punish those who threaten their self-preservation and individual freedom. However prior to entering a civil association, individuals forfeit their right to punish and confer it upon the government. Therefore, the use of individual rights and

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.

In chapter two of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the idea of a natural law is introduced, and with this law, Locke brings forward several implications of how government is formed and run. Before there was government, everyone had equal rights, and land was a god given right to be shared by everyone. When people began to organize, they consented to give up certain rights to receive certain benefits. Locke argues that this is natural, as since men are equal, “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal” (sec. 4). If every man provides help for others, everyone benefits. So, even though not everything is perfectly shared and distributed, equality remains, but is balanced through a more complex system.

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 Locke argued for individual freedom. If we had individual freedom we would have a strong government. Locke said it was necessary to a good government. Locke wrote “People are naturally free and have the right to maintain their freedom.”(Document A) To keep this freedom people needed to construct a government that has both an executive and a legislature. To Locke a government created by the people was the best government in his futuristic sense of

Commonly known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke has had a lasting influence in politics. Locke wrote many political documents, including North Carolina’s first constitution and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but one of his most famous documents is the Second Treatise of Government. The Second Treatise, which was written during a political crisis in Europe, was a voluntary acceptance of order where the government respects the people and the people respect the government. This document, along with Locke’s many other documents and ideas, led to a political advancement throughout

According to Thomas Jefferson, an influential leader, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people.” Jefferson’s quote suggests that the social contract and state are only run sufficiently under the authority of the people. There is a common assumption that a definite agreement among the population of a society, is dictated by the individuals themselves. In the past, various theorists as well as powerful leaders have made conscience endeavors to demystify whether the social contract is imposed by the sovereign or society. This essay makes an argument that the social compact is dictated by individuals because individuals have the power to alter the governments they exist within. The state is what the people define it as. It is bound by territory, and people, states comprise of governments. The Social Contract is developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau about what is believed to be the greatest method to establish a political community.

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.

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

In the society illustrated by John Locke, the human nature is characterized as free and independent; however, the problem with society is that it has too many small inconveniences, which could be as trivial as a tree blocking the sidewalk. To solve these problems, a legitimate government, characterized by explicit consent, checks on institutions and the right to revolt by the people, is needed. The utmost legitimate government, in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is based on John Locke’s social contract in Second Treatise of Government because each aspect of a legitimate government protects the citizen’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Through each aspect, the people can actively participate in government to prevent the sovereign from taking advantage of their powers to further their own goals.

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

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

What justifies political legitimacy in a society? By comparing the two readings assigned one can discuss the differences in political theories expressed by both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, and in, The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke different theories of political legitimacy and definitions of the state of nature are described. The following paragraphs analyze multiple different points that are imperative to understanding these political theories.