John Locke’s basic political principle was the myth of consent: “Man being . . . by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” For Locke, this universal consent took place in early time, when all men were in the state of nature. (Now, some revolutionists invoke revolution to create a new state of nature, and a new beginning.) Normally, in history, Locke held that the majority represented the whole body politic. Locke was a majoritarian to the core, as Willmoore Kendall pointed out a few years ago.
Locke’s humanism placed right in man. Humanistic monarchism had located divine right in the king; Locke now relocated it in the majority. After Rousseau, this majority found its general will expressed by the actions of an elite minority who know best what the majority should want. Dante Germino, in Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, holds, for example, “It is possible that today a minority of the people could prove to be the most authentic and effective exponents of substantive democracy” (p. 137). Frank L. Field proposes re-educational centers to remold dissidents, but claims these are not “full-blown concentration camps” because their purpose is benevolent (F. L. Field, Current Bases for Educational Practice, p. 46ff.). The myth of consent leads to “benevolent” concentration camps, where consent must be extracted.
