Unanimous consent is practically impossible, so majority rule is a practical necessity.

Evidence

For if the consent of the majority shall not, in reason, be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: but such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had, if we consider the infirmities of health, and avocations of business, which in a number, though much less than that of a commonwealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 116

Categorization

• XREF: Anticipates the unanimity-versus-supermajority debate problem familiar from constitutional design and collective action theory. — connects to: Birthplace does not make anyone a natural subject of a government. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 142; Calhoun proposed a concurrent-majority system requiring unanimous consent of all interests to act — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project: A New American Origin…, 637; Polities cannot function without shared consensus, even autocratic ones — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting…, 1158
• QUESTION: Later social-contract theorists may reject Locke’s step from practical impossibility to legitimate majority compulsion; worth tracking.

Related

• Calhoun proposed a concurrent-majority system requiring unanimous consent of all interests to act (similarity 0.82)
• Polities cannot function without shared consensus, even autocratic ones (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Calhoun proposed a concurrent-majority system requiring unanimous consent of all interests to act #responds-to (0.85) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 637
• Polities cannot function without shared consensus, even autocratic ones #complicates (0.75) — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1158