John Locke Tacit Consent

In this essay, I will argue that Locke’s notion of consent, especially consent of the governed makes revolution more likely to occur within society. Locke promotes the right of the people to overthrow leaders who betray them. Furthermore, the executive and legislative entities coexist autonomously to keep each other in check (this can be seen as an early form of checks-and-balances). Locke insists that if a leader breaks the community’s trust, the people can and should replace him immediately. Correspondingly, if the legislative body does not attain the needs of the people, it should be dissolved and replaced with whatever form of government the people think best.
Tacit consent is a form of consent when an individual lives there or owns property within the area, then he/she have tacitly consented to the burdens that the government inflicts on him/her. For example, simply by walking along the walkways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory. Tacit consent can also be seen as a moral obligation to our government because all people are born under some form of government. In the article, “Tacit Consent and Political Obligation” Simmons (1976) explains the three types of consent which are as follows: promises, written contracts, and acts of
consent (which are essentially authorizations of the actions of others). Furthermore, Simmons asserts that all three are deliberate, voluntary acts whose understood objective is to change the structure of rights of the parties involved and to generate obligations on the “consenters.”
However, expressed consent is permission for something that is given specifically, whether in writing or verbally. It can also be seen as an informal process, which Locke states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of active declaration. He emphasizes individual consent as the mechanism by which political societies are created and individuals join those societies. Locke does take into consideration that there are, of course, some general obligations and rights that all people have from the law of nature, special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them. According to the article, “On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society” Simmons (1993) illustrates in ways expressed consent can be used (e.g. such as obtaining citizenship within a country) and correlates it to other factors, such as moral and social elements that influence individuals to act out in an expressed manner, especially when it comes to belonging and acceptance within a society.
In chapter fifteen of the text, Locke describes the different kinds of power that make up a civil society. Parental power is the authority that parents have over their children until they reach the age of reason (this power does not cover their property), despotical power is absolute, arbitrary power of one person to take the life and property of another against their will, and political power is the command that each individual in a society consents or yield to the commonwealth for the protection of their property. Furthermore, he starts off by acknowledging that in any civil society situations will emerge, which will have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to provide laws for them. A good leader will be tacitly allowed a substantial amount of prerogative by his people if his judgments tend to benefit everyone.
As a result, Locke notes that "the reigns of good princes have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people (pg.
378, section 166)." In these cases, it can be difficult for the people to seize the power back from the new offending leader because then the sovereign has taken advantage of what is a right, which is in actuality a trust. In the article, “A Note on John Locke's Concept of Consent” Waldman (1958) examines the historical aspects of government authority and the impacts it has on consent within citizens, which correlates back to trust within the legislative and executive branches of government, especially in countries that are
democracies.
The topic of the right of revolution was taken up by John Locke as a part of his social contract theory. Furthermore, Locke expands on the notion that individuals may withdraw their consent from the government and make a just appeal to heaven (e.g. justifying civil war). He expressed that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, the people could initiate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a guard against tyranny. In the article, “The Uses of America in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government” Lebovics (1989) illustrates how Locke’s notion of property and liberty was the foundation for modern forms of democracy such as the Constitution of the United States of America.
The people have the right to revolt against the government, when it acts against their interests or values. Locke explains that “whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the People, or to reduce them to slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved any farther Obedience… By this breach of Trust they contrary ends, and it devolves to the People who have a Right to resume their original Liberty…” (pg. 412, section 222). Furthermore, the paternalistic approach towards a civil society is unrealistic, because it deprives citizens of their natural rights, properties, and liberties. Locke is criticizing Robert Filmer's idea that kings have divine rights and it cannot be correct because his theory holds that every man is born a slave to the natural born kings. Moreover, Locke refuses to accept such a speculation because of his trust in reason and in the ability of every man to virtuously govern himself according to God’s law.