More important than origins, he seems to deem its implications.

He has placed consent in the foreground of the argument; and he was anxious to establish the grounds for its continuance.

Can the makers of the original contract, that is to say, bind their successors?
If legitimate government is based upon the consent of its subjects, may they withdraw their consent?
And what of a child born into the community?
Locke is at least logical in his consent.
The contract of obedience must be free or else, as Hooker had previously insisted, it is not a contract.

Yet Locke urged that the primitive members of a State are bound to its perpetuation simply because unless the majority had power to enforce obedience government, in any satisfactory sense, would be impossible.

With children the case is different.