John Locke and the Tacit Consent Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

John Locke and the Tacit Consent Theory - Essay Example John Locke’s Theory of Tacit Consent is actually necessary but should not be the only basis of the legitimacy of a government. According to John Locke, the so-called Tacit Consent Theory refers to the notion that â€Å"one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent† (Tuckness), which may translate as â€Å"simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tact consent to the government and agree to obey it while living in its territory† (Tuckness). This is, in fact, a rather self-explanatory definition of tacit consent. The point of Locke then is that â€Å"a government can only be legitimate when its citizens have consented to it† (Greenwood). Tacit consent, therefore, becomes for Locke an implication or indication not only of consent but also of obligation. This means that the idea of being in a particular place implies two things – that one â€Å"voluntarily† or â€Å"tacitly† consents to be ing under the governance of the law of that place, and that one therefore is obliged to follow the law of that place. Furthermore, this obligation to the law is also tantamount to consenting to be subject to the sanctions that will result if the law is not followed. This idea – the Tacit Consent Theory, however, no matter how logical it may sound, lends itself to several flaws. One objection to Locke’s theory of tacit consent is that Locke cannot possibly expect political obligation from the citizens since, based on the theory of tacit consent, it is the citizens’ consent that precedes and determines the legitimacy of the government, and not the other way around. According to Locke, â€Å"a government can only be legitimate when its citizens have consented to it† (Greenwood). This means that unless the citizens consent to the dictates and laws of the government, this government may exist but will remain illegitimate. The citizens’ consent therefore is essential to determining the legitimacy of the government. If, therefore, the actions of the government – imposing laws and sanctions – are dependent upon this legitimacy, then these actions are all dependent upon the consent of the citizens. In simple terms, if the citizens do not consent to the legitimacy of the government – or if there is no public trust – then the government cannot therefore impose laws on the citizens as well as sanctions if they violate these laws. However, Locke would answer this objection using his idea of the â€Å"majority,† which is clearly stated in Sections 97 and 98 in Chapter VIII of his Second Treatise of Government. Although negatively stated by Locke in Section 97, his point is that â€Å"†¦every man [should] submit to the determination of the majority [or else he] would signify nothing and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no ties than he was in before in the state of nature† (Locke). M oreover, Section 98, although also negatively stated, claims that â€Å"if the consent of the majority shall not†¦be received as the act of the whole, [this] will necessarily keep many away from the pubic assembly† (Locke). If Locke therefore would argue with the first objection stated above, he would simply state, based on the provisions of Sections 97 and 98, that the government is simply synonymous to the â€Å"majority† who declare among themselves that certain laws and sanctions should be imposed on the whole body of citizenry. In short, the government, to which some citizens may claim that they have no compulsory allegiance or political obligat