Checkpoint: Tacit Consent And Infrastructure
SONGPHOL THESAKIT
Since the foundational days of our nation’s political philosophy, “consent of the governed” has endured as an ideological cornerstone that legitimizes our government and the authority to attend to its responsibilities. The Founding Fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence that in order to secure our “unalienable” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Founders arrived at this conclusion through means of English Enlightenment-era political philosopher John Locke; in addition, Locke further sought to justify how the absence of one’s expressed governmental consent would not totally undermine the ethical requirement of informed consent at large. To this end, he developed his somewhat controversial notion of “tacit consent” based on benefits derived from government functions. However, Locke’s notion of tacit consent implies that if our consent is based upon the benefits we derive from the operation of government, then a legitimate government must widely operate to materially benefit the entirety of its people through strong targeted programs and legislation aimed at directly garnering individual tacit consent.
Tacit Consent
Locke so thoroughly believed that the entirety of legitimate government derived from the consent of the governed that he attempted to resolve the absence of consent where individuals have not expressly granted it. “Tacit” consent is the notion that owning property in a society necessitates obedience to its laws; by extension, he reasoned that any form of lodging, utilization of public resources, or general benefit from the existence and operation of government implicitly grants consent to its administration and authority. This argument was presented as a means of ensuring that despite individual inability in society to grant expressed consent, government is not excused of the ethical requirement that its authority be granted by the governed. It has been argued, however, that Locke’s theory of tacit consent is unethical in obligating consent and has been referred to as “a quiet tyranny.” Further, many disagree that the United States government operates on legitimate consent at all.
Monopoly of Force
German sociologist Max Weber famously argued in his 1919 work Politics as a Vocation that “a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” He quotes Trotsky in saying, in fact, “'Every state is founded on force.” In American society, we reserve the right to elect our representatives and express our social and political opinion; however, in exchange, we are endowed with accompanying “civil responsibilities”- including but not limited to adherence to the law, attending jury duty, and selective service registration. Failure to complete these responsibilities may incur penalties from the state. Nevertheless, even if we presuppose a reality that the legitimacy of the United States government is based on nothing more than a monopoly of legitimate force, that does not make an ethical government. Further, such a presupposition does not relieve government of the ethical intention that the nation and its sovereign authority be legitimized by the consent of the people, per the Declaration of Independence.
Absence Of Consent
John Locke was also famous for his proposition of the Right of Revolution- to be invoked once government has lost the consent of its people. It was this right invoked by the Founding Fathers in determining the thirteen colonies would be free. As such, the Continental Congress throughout the American Revolutionary era was legitimized only by the consent of the states and their people. The executive authority of the Congress was minimal, and states often declined requests for funds, supplies, and military force. Today we complete no expression of government consent, and our tacit consent is compelled by national authority. Regardless of the reality, the ethical requirement of our informed consent still rests upon our government institutions. Locke’s notion of tacit consent did not halt at property rights, as individuals without property must consent to legislative authority as well; he stated in his Second Treatise of Government, “every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government.”
Upholding Legitimacy
The implication of Locke’s notion, however, is that a government must earn that consent. We have no opportunity to withdraw our consent from the government; therefore, if our tacit consent is based upon our “enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government,” it means that government is ethically legitimized by no more than what it does for its people. Furthermore, despite an absence of means, principle dictates that consent may be actively withdrawn at any time- implying that our tacit consent, via enjoyment of the fruits of government, must be upheld in perpetuity. As a result, the government has an ethical obligation to pass legislation and undertake initiatives that directly benefit the people in the short term and long term. The recent infrastructure bill is an example of one type of legislation that contributes to this end.
Infrastructure
John Locke, true to form, stated that “such enjoyment” of government operation included land ownership “to him and his heirs for ever,” but further, “a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway…” Infrastructure is clearly a key necessity for individuals to secure their benefits from the operation of government. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill includes billions of dollars for roads, bridges, airports, waterways, the electric grid, railways, water systems, and public transit, but also non-conventional infrastructure such as broadband investments, environmental remediation projects, and electric vehicles. Locke, in an attempt to justify why all perspectives may not be considered in a society, references the “infirmities of health and avocations of business, which in a number though much less than that of a commonwealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly.” However, those same differences in health and business between individuals thus require that government pass legislation that directly garners consent from people of all “infirmities” and “avocations.”
Benefits of Governance
Missing from the infrastructure bill is President Biden’s proposal to fund healthcare improvements for aging and disabled Americans, increase wages for home health workers, and improve access to long-term service under Medicaid. Further excluded were billions toward proposed modernization of Veterans Affairs hospitals and workforce development; in addition, increases to corporate tax rates which would fund the American Jobs Plan were omitted. A common debate throughout deliberation of the bill was whether healthcare constituted infrastructure; however, regardless of one’s opinion on the matter, tacit consent requires that government fund measures benefitting Americans with infirmities. The omission of funding for services dedicated to aging Americans is an example of the government failing to produce the “enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government.” Unhealthy individuals cannot properly enjoy the fruits of governance, thus government accepts an ethical obligation to uphold the health of the governed. A generally strong welfare system would increase individual access to the benefits of government consent.
Conclusion
Legitimacy is an ethical necessity for government that is easily overlooked in stable times. Legitimacy in American politics was most recently tested by an incumbent president refusing to concede defeat and insurrectionists later attempting to overturn that legitimate defeat. Consent may be withdrawn from a governmental body if that body is not reasonably upholding that consent. John Locke was a thoroughly influential philosopher to the Founding Fathers, who thus vested the power and will of the American government in the will of the people. Where we today are unable to express direct consent, the government nonetheless maintains an ethical obligation to continually uphold the consent of the governed via legislation targeting and benefiting the people at large, garnering our ongoing tacit consent. Such legislation must target people of all “infirmities” and “avocations”- therefore, investment in strong systems that benefit the people. If we are to accept that informed consent and the will of the people are not indeed the forces that legitimize our government, we must acknowledge that America fails to live up to the values from which it was born.