Abstract

Recent interpretation stresses the narrow role of consent in locke: it is a ground, Not of legitimacy but of legitimate revolt. Locke is less precise. In rejecting filmer's claim that birth imposes absolute political obligations locke implicitly denies its determination of the locus as well as the degree of those obligations. Using consent to limit political absolutism, Thus inadvertently raised the question of its direct link with citizenship, Hence locke's confused discussion of tacit and express consent. Locke leaves the issue unresolved, Making the common patriarchal assumption that the location, If not the degree of political obligation, Can be inferred from birth