John Locke and the Tacit Consent Theory - Essay Example

? John Locke and the Tacit Consent Theory Seventeenth century British Empiricist philosopher John Locke was not only an authority in epistemology and metaphysics but also an expert in political philosophy. His Theory of Tacit Consent, which supposes that a person tacitly and unconsciously consents to the laws of the place where he lives, has brought about a political controversy not only among the intellectuals of his day but also among contemporary philosophers like Rawls, Nozick and Simmons. 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 “one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent” (Tuckness), which may translate as “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 “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 “voluntarily” or “tacitly” consents to being 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, “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 “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 “…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). Moreover, Section 98, although also negatively stated, claims that “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 “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 obligation, is actually they themselves or the majority of them citizens. If these citizens oppose or challenge the government and claim that their consent precedes and determines its legitimacy and that therefore this government has no right to impose political obligation on them, Locke would like to say that these citizens are still merely opposing and challenging themselves because it is they themselves – or the majority of them – who created this government with its laws and sanctions. Although this response may sound logical, it has its own flaws. An appropriate response to the argument of Locke in the preceding paragraph is that the mere presence of the majority does not necessarily entail political obligation from the entire citizenry. If therefore there is a majority of citizens who call themselves “government,” they may subsequently CREATE laws and sanctions to these laws, but this does not necessarily or logically mean that they can IMPOSE these laws on people who do not know anything about these laws, especially those who have not voluntarily and consciously expressed consent to this government. The weakness of Locke’s argument is therefore the idea that just because there is a government and that this government comes from the people themselves, people are expected to VOLUNTARILY, TACITLY AND UNCONSCIOUSLY adhere to whatever this government imposes on them. As argued by Rawls, there is a huge difference between consenting “behind a veil of ignorance” and consenting to something which one does not know (Greenwood). Nevertheless, no one knows the consequences of whatever one consents to. Rawls, therefore, solves this by claiming that, although one may not have full knowledge of what one consents to, he may do so if these laws are governed by “principles of justice” (Greenwood). In short, Locke’s theory of tacit consent fails because, through this theory, Locke assumes that even if the government imposes death penalty on anyone for a simple traffic violation, they should tacitly consent to it because, after all, it is the “glorious” majority who imposes these on them. Although this hypothetical law may in fact promote good if not excellent traffic management, there is some doubt whether people would indeed support this law. The reason is an obvious lack of justice in the law – such a horrible punishment for such a simple crime. The probable result would then be the citizens’ dissent towards the government and the automatic lack of consent to this law. It is therefore justice and not the majority that determines consent. Without justice, there is no consent; and without consent, there is no legitimacy of government. Perhaps, Simmons is actually right in assuming that Locke’s theory of tacit consent supposes “philosophical anarchism” (Tuckness). Since Locke may have failed to consider the people’s morals and their natural adherence to virtues like justice, he also failed to see that perhaps the true determinants of a government’s legitimacy are morals and justice – and not just mere consent. Another objection to Locke’s theory of tacit consent is that the legitimacy of a government is not necessarily determined by mere consent but by natural law. The original founders of any government have not actually signed any contract among themselves nor have they signed a contract that would determine the legitimacy of the government that they have formed. Governments are basically established from the natural law governed by justice, love and faith. Locke may not have considered these human emotions and virtues and thus he assumed that REGARDLESS of what the government imposes, citizens must tacitly consent to it. He therefore assumes that when people live in a country with a particularly dictatorial government like North Korea, then these people must silently consent to martial law, strict and unjust laws, and other cruel and brutal regulations. Locke may have therefore not considered other factors like a lack of knowledge on the part of the citizens, a lack of choice, and most of all, a lack of opportunity for a better life. If Locke were the Prime Minister of Great Britain right now, then perhaps he would not view the North Korean citizens as a people who simply condone the proliferation of nuclear warheads and as a people who FREELY and TACITLY consent to whatever the militaristic government of Kim Jong-Un imposes on them. This supposed view of Locke’s is actually not only false but also unfair. A probable response of Locke to the above argument is Section 100, 101 and 105 of his Second Treatise of Government. Section 100 states that “there are no instances…of a company of men independent, and equal one amongst another…and set up a government” (Locke). Moreover, Section 101 states that “history gives us but a very little account of men that lived together in the state of nature” (Locke). Section 105 then concludes it by stating that “the original of common (Locke). Locke, therefore, through Sections 100 and 105, explains that his idea of “tacit consent” is based on the idea that men are not equal by nature – there must be one who governs and one who is governed, and that the one who is governed is expected or supposed to TACITLY CONSENT to whatever the one who governs imposes. Locke then reiterates in Section 101 that there is no love in this expression of consent as well as in the imposition of the law. One simply imposes the law for its sake and not out of love or justice, and so neither love nor justice is also expected from the one on whom the law is imposed. What is expected of him is just his consent, no more no less. Perhaps, the reason for John Locke’s theory of consent is his own view of the human being. Locke’s perspective of the human being may be similar to that of Hobbes – a loveless, unfeeling creature that needs laws to restrain his natural desires for war and violence. Naturally, a creature which is unfeeling is basically expected to express tacit consent and should therefore not be allowed even to voice out his opinion on anything imposed upon him – for only chaos will result from such an exchange. A brutal savage Neanderthal therefore requires “tacit consent” to the laws imposed upon him for he may have no idea of justice or love and therefore must not be given any other alternative – like a due process in court – lest he should become uncontrollably violent. But are all men like this? Are all men like violent savage Neanderthals that they should not be given any other choice but to express tacit consent to whatever is imposed upon them? Locke and Hobbes may think that man may be a naturally violent and lawless creature, and Aquinas may contend that man is basically all good. However, a more plausible description of man is that he is both a mixture of good and evil qualities. Therefore, man is not someone who should just be subjected to laws that require nothing of him except his tacit consent or unconditional agreement. Man is also partly a creature of love, justice and faith, and these are the qualities that must be drawn out of every citizen if the government wants their natural allegiance to it. In short, if a government wants to elicit true political obligation from the citizens, then they have no choice but to also have the people’s sense of justice, love and faith as the basis of the legitimacy of the government and not only mere tacit consent. Moreover, people are not weaklings and mute Neanderthals. They have emotion and a voice that they use to express this emotion. They are therefore entitled to free opinion on whether a particular law is justly or unjustly imposed on them. Only weak spineless worms use tacit content as the basis of their allegiance to their own governments. John Locke’s tacit consent is therefore only for the brutes. In conclusion, in fairness to Locke, tacit consent has its own purpose; otherwise, it would not have been thought of or otherwise it would not have been included in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, which is one of the greatest political treatises of all time. In the above paragraphs, one sentence should be repeated: “In short, if a government wants to elicit true political obligation from the citizens, then they have no choice but to also have the people’s sense of justice, love and faith as the basis of the legitimacy of the government and not only mere tacit consent.” The point is that tacit consent is only intended for those citizens who are expected to follow the law right away, such as the violent, the brutal and the cruel. These people should not be given a second chance at freely exercising their rights; otherwise, they would surely create more harm than good. On the other hand, good and responsible citizens whose opinion and word matter in the choice of laws to govern them, and those whose natural dispositions are naturally good and obedient need not be imposed to follow the law unconditionally and forcefully through tacit consent. These are the ones whose free, conscious consent becomes the basis of the legitimacy of the government. This free, conscious consent is governed by love, justice and faith – virtues which are absent in Locke’s definition of tacit consent. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Greenwood, Bowen H. “Tacit Consent: A Quiet Tyranny.” 1995. Web. Locke, John. “Chapter VIII: Of the Beginning of Political Societies.” Second Treatise of Government. Constiution.org. 2012. Web. Tuckness, Alex. “Locke’s Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web. Read More