John Locke's Tacit Consent

According to Locke, consent of the governed is essential for the government to function and act as a mediator for the citizens. This brings up the question of how people consent to their government, because only few people actually give their consent and therefore the government is not actually considered legitimate. Locke's argument is that tacit consent exists for this purpose of creating legitimate government since it would be impossible for every man to consent to a law. I do not agree with his statement that tacit consent is a reliable mean of giving authority to the government. John Locke recognized tacit consent as something the citizens automatically carry out by living in the territory that is permanently under the jurisdiction of commonwealth. For example, by obeying to wait for the traffic light to turn green, a person has agreed to obey the laws created by the government. However, Hannah Pitkin argues that just by residing in the territory does not mean people automatically give consent, …show more content…
He states that tacit consent can form or change into an express consent if certain conditions are met. Firstly, an individual has to be perfectly aware that consent is appropriate for a given situation. Secondly, they have to allow ample amount of time for any expressions of dissent in order to weigh the balance of knowing what is most appropriate. This means that an individual must take anything into account and think about how it might benefit or hurt them. Thirdly, if an individual chooses to dissent, the consequences cannot significantly obstruct the potential consenter. For instance, a person cannot be ostracized by the state just because he or she has a different opinion than the majority. If these conditions are met, Simmons says that tacit consent adequately grounds the principles of the government and its obligation to practice