Comparing John Locke And Tacit Consent
Locke on consent and tacit consent Note for Philosophy 166
Locke holds that one becomes obligated to obey political authorities only by one’s free and voluntary consent. Or does he? Locke: “The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all.” Locke, later: “And to this I say that every man, that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government” (section 119).
Hanna Pitkin on Locke on consent: Consent is ultimately …show more content…
Tacit consent can ground obligation when Simmons’s conditions do not hold. For example, a landowner can say to a trespasser, “Unless you get off my land, you must clean my stables.” Here the indicated act of dissent may result in extreme detriment to the trespasser, but the crucial point is that the landowner has a right to require the trespasser to leave his land. So by remaining on the landowner’s land, the trespasser tacitly consents to clean his stables.
Relevance to Locke: Locke holds that a state is formed when landowners pool their land and make a mutual covenant, hereby this land shall be one nation, and anyone venturing on this land must consent to obey its laws. See sections 116-117 & 120). This is a covenant that runs with the land—so anyone who purchases parts of this land does so on condition it remains under the English (for example) jurisdiction, and may permissibly transfer the land to another person only given this condition. This is controversial, but what Locke holds. In this reading, a lot of weight rests on Locke’s account of the rights of legitimate private property owners. Notice consent can bind even when one has no reasonable alternative, as when I have a choice between cancer surgery or quick death, and I contract with the only doctor in the vicinity for cancer
Locke holds that one becomes obligated to obey political authorities only by one’s free and voluntary consent. Or does he? Locke: “The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all.” Locke, later: “And to this I say that every man, that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government” (section 119).
Hanna Pitkin on Locke on consent: Consent is ultimately …show more content…
Tacit consent can ground obligation when Simmons’s conditions do not hold. For example, a landowner can say to a trespasser, “Unless you get off my land, you must clean my stables.” Here the indicated act of dissent may result in extreme detriment to the trespasser, but the crucial point is that the landowner has a right to require the trespasser to leave his land. So by remaining on the landowner’s land, the trespasser tacitly consents to clean his stables.
Relevance to Locke: Locke holds that a state is formed when landowners pool their land and make a mutual covenant, hereby this land shall be one nation, and anyone venturing on this land must consent to obey its laws. See sections 116-117 & 120). This is a covenant that runs with the land—so anyone who purchases parts of this land does so on condition it remains under the English (for example) jurisdiction, and may permissibly transfer the land to another person only given this condition. This is controversial, but what Locke holds. In this reading, a lot of weight rests on Locke’s account of the rights of legitimate private property owners. Notice consent can bind even when one has no reasonable alternative, as when I have a choice between cancer surgery or quick death, and I contract with the only doctor in the vicinity for cancer