TACIT CONSENT IN THE DOCTRINES OF JOHN LOCKE AND JOHN RAWLS

  • Dragana Obačkić Fakultet političkih nauka Banja Luka, master student
Keywords: Legitimate authority, country, tacit consent, John Locke, John Rawls

Abstract


Political theory often raises the question of how to establish an authority that is legitimate, the latter implying that the said authority does not threaten the autonomy of the will of an individual, which, according to modern political theory, is a condition allowing us  speak about authority over citizens. Otherwise, we could talk about subjects of that authority, which is not relevant for this paper. In order to preserve the autonomy of the will of an individual, it is necessary that the decision-makers of the authorities voluntarily consent to them. There are different types of consent in political theory and practice, among which are explicit and tacit consent. This paper deals with the phenomenon of tacit consent, more precisely with an analysis of the concept of tacit consent in the doctrines of John Locke and John Rawls.

References

Beran, H. (1987). The Consent Theory of Political Obligation, London: Croom Helm.

Buchanan, J. (1975). The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan,Chicago: Unevrsity of Chicago.

Darwal, S. (2003). Contractarianism/contractualism, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

FEE (1995) Tacit Consent: A Quiet Tyranny. Foundation for Economic Education, URL: https://fee.org/articles/tacit-consent-a-quiet-tyranny/. Pristupljeno 02. 01. 2020.

Green, A. S. (2012). Against Obligation-the Multiple Source of Authority in a Liberal Democracy, Harvard University Press.

Hobbes, T. ([1651] 1991). Leviathan, R. Tuck, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. ([1748] 1985). Of the Original Contract. In Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, E. Miller, ed., revised edition, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Hampton, J. (2007). The intrinsic Worth of Persons-Contractarianism in Moral and Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Farnham Daniel (ed); Cambridge University Press.

Klosko, G. (2011). Political Obligation.” In Klosko,G. ed. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. ([1793] 1970) On the Current Saying : This May Be True in Theory, but it does not Apply in Practice. In Kant’s Political Writings, H. Reiss, ed. H. Nisbet, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

King, L. A. (2013). Consent. URL: . 12. 2019.

Lok, Dž. (2002). Dvije rasprave o vladi. Beograd: Utopija.

Locke, J. ([1690] 1988). Second Treatise on Civil Government. In Two Treatises of Government. P. Laslett, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raz, J. (1995). Ethics in the Public Domain-Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). A Teory of Justice. URL: http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.it/cms/CM_PORTALE_CRC/servlet/Docs?dir=docs_biblio&file=BiblioContenuto_3641.pdf. Pristupljeno 25. 12. 2019.

Singer, P. (1975). Democracy and Disobedience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simmons, A. J. (1993). On the Ege of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Simmons, A. J. (1979). Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Simmons, A. J. (1976). Tacit Consent and Political Obligation. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264884?seq=1. Pristupljeno 2. 8. 2020.

Savanović, A. (2019). Teorija republike. Banja Luka: Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci, Fakultet političkih nauka.

Waldron, J. (1987). Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Published
2020/10/02
Section
Preliminary Report