|















|

Can Lockean Thought Secure The Consent
of the Governed?
Court L. Farrell
According to John Locke, there are two ways in which a citizen (or someone
wishing for citizenship) can consent to their government once they leave
the state of nature. These two ways, "express" and "tacit" are both intriguing
concepts spurned on by Lockean thought. This paper hopes to provide an
adequate definition for these two concepts and then follow the aforementioned
principles by analyzing each one briefly.
The concept of expressed consent is very simple to understand. This can
be achieved through a formal declaration of loyalty to the country. This,
of course, forever binds that individual to the country they declare for
the entire existence of either their natural life or that of the country
(whichever may disintegrate first). Of course, when comparing this to
the United States, this type of consent is currently only found in the
naturalization process of immigrants. They must swear allegiance to the
country before becoming a formal citizen, but it is imperative that this
process should also be necessary for non-naturalized citizens.
The reasoning behind this is very sound. In fact, it can be believed that
most immigrants hold a stronger loyalty and patriotic nature for the United
States than the majority of those born and reared there. This can be more
readily understood by analyzing the countries from whence these immigrants
come and the subsequent lack of freedoms that currently exist there. If
all United States' citizens were held to a vow of allegiance, they would
hold a more patriotic viewpoint of their country and would thus be more
willing to fight for their cause. There, of course, would be no governmental
backlash if a citizen chose to not participate in such allegiance-swearing
(any sound political mind is aware of the horrible nature of the Alien
and Sedition Acts), but at least the concept would work towards a greater
good.
The second concept is that of "tacit" consent. This principle follows
what can be described as a "free-rider" problem. Most people simply live
in the state and enjoy the benefits and thus are considered to have given
their consent to the government to impose laws and restrictions upon them.
This type of consent, in my opinion, is what causes many great problems
in the United States. The analogy to create a better understanding would
be described as thus: a teenager who pays for his own car is more likely
to take better care of it, drive it more safely, and achieve a greater
role of responsibility for both private property and financial understanding.
Applying this to the tacit concept is easy. If you simply enjoy the benefits
without exhibiting a sworn allegiance to a country, then perhaps your
respect dwindles on that notion.
When one gives his consent to something, it should be that of a verbal
or written declaration, and in doing so, he owes a greater deal of responsibility
for the country's protection, well-being, and overall prosperity. Such
notions were not uncommon during World War II, when patriotism in the
United States was the highest it had and still has ever been. Therefore,
it is safe to assume that tacit consent creates more problems than it
ultimately solves, and although this concept is rarely applied to the
systematic assumption of problems, it can be well noted that it plays
a large role in the lack of patriotic enthusiasm exuberated by the United
States.
Thus in conclusion, it is essential that the citizenry of the United States
owe a specific allegiance not to an oppressive freedom-limiting one-world
government, as is the case with the United Nations, but to that country
which ultimately gives them their freedoms and rights. In doing so, the
citizenry owes an obligation to their country for a sworn allegiance bound
by a formal declaration. Such an adherence would increase patriotism and
the overall common good of that country, ultimately diminishing unpatriotic
protests and discourse, not through the evils of government intervention,
but instead from the choice of a patriotic public.
|