Locke would say that the majority of the citizens is to be the judge, But many questions have to be
decided too quickly for it to be possible to ascertain the opinion of the electorate; of these peace
and war are perhaps the most important. The only remedy in such cases is to allow to public
opinion or its representatives some power--such as impeachment--of subsequently punishing
executive officers for acts that are found to have been unpopular. But often this is a very
inadequate remedy.
I quoted previously a sentence which I must now quote again:
"The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under
government, is the preservation of their property."
Consistently with this doctrine Locke declares that:
"The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent."
Still more surprising is the statement that, although military commanders have power of life and
death over their soldiers, they have no power of taking money. (It follows that, in any army, it
would be wrong to punish minor breaches of discipline by fines, but permissible to punish them
by bodily injury, such as flogging. This shows the absurd lengths to which Locke is driven by his
worship of property.)
The question of taxation might be supposed to raise difficulties for Locke, but he perceives none.
The expense of government, he says, must be borne by the citizens, but with their consent, i.e.,
with that of the majority. But why, one asks, should the consent of the majority suffice? Every
man's consent, we were told, is necessary to justify the government in taking any part of his
property. I suppose his tacit consent to taxation in accordance with majority decision is presumed
to be involved in his citizenship, which, in turn, is presumed to be voluntary. All this is, of course,
sometimes quite contrary to the facts. Most men have no effective liberty of choice as to the State
to which they shall belong, and very few have liberty, nowadays, to belong to no State. Suppose,
for example, you are a pacifist, and disapprove of war. Wherever you live, the government will
take some of your property for warlike purposes. With what justice can you be compelled to
submit to this? I can imagine many answers, but I do not think any of them are consistent with
Locke's principles. He thrusts in the maxim of majority rule without adequate consideration, and
offers