locke: believes political obligation relies on the consent of its citizens
- consent must be meaningful -> can't be forced/coerced -> must be able to refuse consent (dissent) -> otherwise there is no political obligation
HOWEVER, dissenting does = no political obligation -> there are limits (legal dissent) -> this protects our right to dissent + expression of dissent
types of legal dissent: protest, pressure groups, protest voting
HOWEVER argue: legal dissent doesn't have equal influence/impact on social issues -> THUS doesn't protect our equality
illegal dissent:
1) conscientious objection: not actually trying to change law / morally disagree with a particular law / but don't have problem with others obeying it - just want to protect personal moral values e.g. pacifist refusal to join army -> not a threat bc generally obey the law + thus accept any punishment given to them... so best to give a lenient punishment (still have to be punished bc still breaking the law) + social consequences = minimal -> can be justified in court by explaining moral views + thus why they refuse to obey a particular law

2) revolution: aim to change every component of the state (it's laws, it's rulers etc)
this is justified when:
locke: when state fails to provide the benefit of uniform punishment
hobbes: state fails to provide benefits (protection)

justifying dissent: locke
- point of state = provide protection of uniform punishment + enforcing the LoN
- if state does this = has tacit consent of citizens
- if fails to do this = citizens have the right to dissent
HOWEVER:
Locke assumes citizens are
1) informed: that they know whether the state is enforcing the laws of nature -> might be unaware -> THUS won't know whether to give consent or not
2) rational: perhaps even if the state provides what its supposed to citizens might still dissent bc perhaps they aren't rational enough to acknowledge the long-term advantages

lock: only the majority have the right to dissent
- bc allowing individuals to dissent brings back problem of state of nature: individual judgements = conflict
HOWEVER- basically saying that if the majority are happy with the way things are then the minority's opinion isn't to be taken into account -> what about a society where the majority control an unjust society and the minority suffers? surely dissent is justified then e.g. a majority exploiting a minority for unfairly cheap labour -> seems wrong that the minority simply aren't justified to dissent.
- ALSO disregards freedom + equality + autonomy of the individual