Simionas- Blog 1

 Smith accurately criticizes Locke’s argument of tacit consent along the basis of how difficult it actually is for an individual to consent to the nation in which they grow up in. Smith notes the fact that even if “obedience” is originally founded on a contract, “their posterity have nothing to do with it, they are not conscious of it, and therefore cannot be bound by it” (Par 16 pg. 403). Smith goes on to account for the limitations provided by language barriers or lack of wealth on one’s ability to control the nation they live in once they are born into a nation. 

Smith further criticizes the weight Locke places on the contract, another key aspect of Locke’s idea of the consent of the governed. Smith argues that if you observe human behavior, contracts do not tend to carry the weight of allegiance, and are not valued equally as allegiance. First, Smith claims this with an example that is easily seen today: that “if there be such a thing as an original contract, aliens who come into a country preferring it to others give the most express consent to it” however are still under suspicion of being disloyal to the country they joined (Par 17 pg 403). In the U.S, individuals born in the U.S. can easily get away with not knowing the information needed to pass a citizenship test, and are not called to take an oath to their country formally like immigrants are. However, despite its large immigrant population a significant portion of the U.S. is suspicious of immigrants and would most likely judge immigrants to be less “patriotic” or devoted to the country than U.S. born citizens. Smith continues to point out that treason is considered a much higher crime than breaking a contract, meaning the two are not viewed as equal. This powerful counterargument to Locke’s basis of consent of the governed and contract suggests a different explanation for the foundation and legitimacy of government. 

In regards to consent being the backbone of Locke’s argument for money (seen in Par 50 pg 29), I believe Smith would have a similar criticism. While the men who first began to trade money may have consented to assigning arbitrary value to a non-perishing currency that can be compared to the value of perishable goods for buying and selling, the use of money does not stop with that one group of people consenting. The children of these men will have had no say in the matter if everyone around them is already using money, and a barterer who wants to only trade in goods and not currency will be forced to choose to not acquire goods he cannot produce himself or accept the currency around him if everyone else is translating all their goods into money before trading and expecting him to do the same. Therefore the use of money and the allowance for disproportionate possession of the earth, according to Smith, cannot be based on the tacit consent of every man involved to accept and use money. However, perhaps Smith’s ideas of authority and utility could be similarly applied here. As far as authority, Smith lists “superior wealth” to be the strongest contributor to “conferr authority,” and says that even with no benefit to themselves those poorer “have a strong propensity to pay them [those superior in wealth] respect,” (par 12 pg 401). The use of money obviously provides more wealth to the rich, and the continued use of money is a continuation of the pattern for the poor to respect the rich even if it does not serve them well. As far as utility, perhaps submitting to the use of money seems to better for the good of the whole to individuals.