John Locke's Tacit Consent Of Government

745 Words3 Pages
Locke makes the statement that whoever accepts the benefits of a government has tacitly consented to the burdens that government imposes on him. It would be irrational to receive benefits without expecting to have an obligation in return. If a friend were to give me something, I would be in debt to them for their doing. Our argument is that we have not given our tacit consent to the U.S. government. To start it off, most people are not fully and impartially aware of what they are agreeing to in tacit consent to a government and its laws. It is one thing, for a person to consent by actions rather than words and another to claim a person has consented without being aware that they have done so. Let us first look at Locke’s emphasis on the consent of government. According to his theory, consent is the fundamental basis for the government but how would you see to it that everyone has consented to government at any given time? Our last presidential election was held in 2012. However, 3 years has passed since then and new immigrants, children just born, and those who were imprisoned at the time of the last election haven’t actually consented to government, which would make the government unlawful. This raises yet another question. Is it logistically possible for government to have…show more content…
“Should it be said, that, by living under the dominion of a prince, which one might leave, every individual has given a tacit consent to his authority, and promised him obedience; it may be answered, that such an implied consent can only have place, where a man imagines, that the matter depends on his choice. But where he thinks (as all mankind do who are born under established governments) that by his birth he owes allegiance to a certain prince or certain form of government; it would be absurd to infer a consent or choice, which he expressly, in this case, renounces and
Show More
Related

  • Pros And Cons Of Thomas Hobbes

    1067 Words  | 5 Pages

    attractive. Yet, Dan Gordon opposes to such legislation because they would undermine environmental regulations, threaten homeowners’ property values while only benefiting the few large landowners. On one hand, John Locke would enable him to defend his argument by asserting that the government must work towards not the particular few but the common peace and prosperity. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes would brush that argument aside, stating that as a subject Gordon has no right whatsoever to question

    Read More

More about John Locke's Tacit Consent Of Government

Open Document