Mehra- Blog Post 1

 In Chapter VIII, Locke argues that consent given from free individuals legitimizes political society. In making this argument, Locke asserts that individuals born into a certain society give “tacit consent” to be governed by it. 


Specifically, Locke notes that when a child “comes to age of discretion . . . he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under” (Par 118). Furthermore, while the consent from the freeman may not be express, Locke argues that “every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions or any state government, doth thereby give his tacit consent” (Par 119). To Locke, this tacit consent suffices to legitimize the political society. 


In making the argument about tacit consent, Locke fails to acknowledge the factors that compel individuals to remain within the society they were born into. The“freeman” that Locke describes is someone who’s choices of government are not constrained. Locke paints a portrait of an individual looking through a catalog to select how he wants to be governed, and if he sees no suitable options, creating his own government (Par. 113, 118). If the individual continues to live under the same society in which he was born, it follows that he consents to that society. However, the freedom of choice that Locke implies does not match reality.


The constraints of reality often coerce an individual into staying within their original society. When discussing what induces “men to enter into a civil society” in Lectures of Jurisprudence, Adam Smith asserts that the concept of “tacit consent” is undermined because staying in the contract is mostly unavoidable (401,403). Smith points to the difficulty of immigrating due to language and monetary barriers, and the potential consequences a state may impose on an individual for attempting to be leave (403). He emphasizes that due to these constraints, man “cannot therefore be said to give any consent to a contract, tho’ they may have the strongest sense of obedience.”


The line that Smith draws between “obedience” and “consent” is due to coercion. If constraints compel an individual to stay within a given society, they can certainly obey the laws. But the constraints are so impactful in that individual’s decision that Locke’s “tacit consent” is coerced. The individual is not as “free” to decide as Locke presents. Therefore, Locke’s argument that free individuals legitimize political society is undermined by the coerced nature of “tacit consent.”

Comments

Paul Hurley said…
A nice job of capturing the force of Smith's argument that obedience does not constitute consent, and of suggesting that such obedience can be coerced, in which case it is actually the opposite of consent (or at least the opposite of legitimating consent).
January 28, 2021 at 2:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more