John Locke on Tacit and Unintended Consent Essay example -- Empiricists

In his Second Treatise on Law and Government, John Locke outlines put right and perspicuous standards for what constitutes a legitimate giving medication and what persons one such government would brace authority over. Both are determined by citizens acts of consenting to relinquish to the government part of their natural authority over their own conduct. Unfortunately, the situation becomes much less clear once we consider how his standards would apply to the political situation existent in the real world today. If we continue to subscribe to Lockes account without altering its standards, we would see a precipitous drop in the number of people whose interests breathing governments are responsible for serving. In this paper I will show that with certain changes and clarifications to Lockes standards, the responsibilities of existing governments need not be allowed to shrink so drastically. This creates a tradeoff, however. Changing the standards to apply more closely to actual functioning governments has the consequence of making it more difficult to determine the legitimacy of those governments. Some of the clarity of Lockes speculative model is lost in translating it to apply to actual instances of government.A cornerstone of Lockes political philosophy is the idea that a government holds power legitimately totally through the consent of the governed. A polished society consents to grant a particular government rule over it, and each person chooses on an someone basis to become a member of a particular civil society (II, 117). As giving such consent has far-reaching consequences over a persons life, Locke provides get along explanation of what "consent" entails in this context.Only one way exists to become a member of a civil society express consent. From Lockes account this would have to be a fairly formal business, which the individual enters "by positive Engagement, and express Promise and Compact" (II, 122). Lockes original wor ding is important because it seems to imply that unless a person actually makes a public agreement to submit to government law in return for protection of person, liberty, and property, she has not expressly consented. He makes it clear that there are no alternatives to this official process if one is to become part of a civil society, (II, 122).Even if one is not considered part of a particular civil society, she mus... ... of a government can be measured by the effective options available to its citizens.If we had held to Lockes standards for consent to membership in a civil society and submission to government rule, we would have concluded that most people in the world are tacitly consenting to the rule of governments created by very small groups of explicit signers of social contracts. This would lead to a bizarre picture of the political landscape very much at odds with intuition and with new reality. By changing standards for consent to mean compliance with official require ments for citizenship when other options are available, we are able to account for those who consider themselves and are considered members of a civil society without having given explicit consent, while at the same time freeing those not given a choice from the appearance of having given consent. A government is then legitimate to the extent that its citizens have given consent according to these standards. It is one of those rare examples where laws have made the situation clearer.SourcesLocke, John. Second Treatise. From devil Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter, ed. New York Cambridge University Press, 1988.