1. Equality
	According to Locke, in the state of nature, men have the "perfect freedom to order their actions ... without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other men".  Locke believed that "creatures of the same species and rank ... should ... be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection".  Locke clarifies this belief by stating that a man, under the law of nature, "ought not to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". Not only should men treat one another fairly, men should also assist the rest of mankind "when his own preservation comes not in competition" with doing so. Men's equality should only be violated if "the lord and master of them all should ... set one above another".  Men also have the right "when it is necessary," to "destroy things noxious to them".  In a state of nature, this includes "a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation".  All men being equal, "if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so".  
	Boucher begins his argument against Locke at its roots, by refuting the philosophy that men are inherently equal.  He callse the principle "ill-founded and false both in its premises and conclusion", and goes on to explain, "man differs from man in everything that can be supposed to lead to supremacy and subjection, as one star differs from another star in glory".  Both Locke's and Boucher's positions are substantiated only by philosophy, making agreement with either side a subjective matter based on personal philosophy.  

2. Consent
	Because a man, in his natural status, is free and equal with other men, no government can make him a subject without his own consent. Locke names two types of consent: express and tacit.  When Locke says, "No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government", he means that a man may come fully under a government by giving his express consent to be ruled.  Tacit consent is different in its scope.  Locke asserts that "every man, that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent". A man who gave tacit consent may retract his consent by "[quitting] the said possession".   If after doing so he is no longer in an area of the government's jurisdiction, he is then "at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other commonwealth".  In contrast, if a man gives his express consent to any government, then he "is perpetually and indispensably obliged to be, and remain unalterably a subject to it ... unless, by any calamity, the said government comes to be dissolved; or else by some public act cuts him off from being any longer a member of it". 
	Boucher contradicts Locke based on his earlier disagreement concerning the equality of men, pointing out a contradiction in Locke's logic: when a man gives his consent "he would also completely relinquish the principle of equality", by allowing himself to be ruled by other men.  This argument also draws from Boucher's belief that government was not "originally formed by the consent or by a compact of the people", and is summarized neatly by the statement "even an explicit consent can bind a man no longer than he chooses to be bound".  In Boucher's view, government is inherently unequal; "the supreme magistrate ... is to be regarded and venerated as the vice-regent of God", and "to pursue liberty .. in a manner not warranted by law, whatever the pretense may be, is clearly to be hostile to liberty".  These themes are echoed and expanded upon in his argument against the right of resistance.  

3. Right of Resistance
	Locke's position on the right of resistance to government is a product of his thoughts on the equality of all men and their consent to be ruled.  The purpose of a government, for Locke, is to provide for men a security in "life, health, liberty, or possessions" that a state of nature cannot provide.  All men being equal and agreeing to the government on equal terms, should the government cease to serve its purpose in protecting its creators' lives and effects, the government's subordinates have a right, even a duty, to abolish the old government and create a new one which would serve those ends. 
	Boucher criticizes this heavily, making use of several generalizations as he does so.  When he asks, "what is resistance but a recalling and resuming the consent heretofore supposed to have been given, and in fact refusing to submit to the determination of the majority", he is pointing out an apparent conflict between Locke's belief in "[submitting] to the determination of the majority" while still reserving the power to abolish the social contract should the government not serve its purposes.  He rejects Locke's idea of a government limited by observing the rights of its subjects ("All government ... is, in its nature, absolute and irresistible"), and goes on to state that "For any government to make itself irresistible, and to cease to be absolute, it must cease to be supreme, ... in other words, it must dissolve itself or be destroyed", a Hobbesian belief in absolute government, and a staunch rejection of the natural rights which underly the right of resistance.  /*is there justification for this? i didn't see any, so i just assumed hobbes*/

	This is different from the bulk of Boucher's later arguments, which stem from the more subjective and thus defensible stance that "it is under the deputation and authority of God alone that kings reign" (unfortunately for Boucher, this opinion has since largely fallen out of favor).  /*TODO: put this somewhere. or just baleet it*/

4. Majority Rule
	According to Locke, when men form a civil society and a government, majority rule is necessary and just.  All members of the contract are obliged to obey: "Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority".  He makes an exception in the event that the people should require some other quantity to enact a decision ("in assemblies ... where no number is set by that positive law which empowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole") but does not believe that an agreement of all individuals is feasible as a better solution ("the infirmities of health, and avocations of business, ... will necessarily keep many away form the public assembly.  To which if we add the variety of opinions, and contrariety of interests ... would make the mighty Leviathan of a shorter duration, than the feeblest creatures").  

5. Source of Political Power
	In Locke's philosophy, the source of power lies in the people, as it is through their mutual agreement that government is created.  /*TODO: find quotes supporting this section, write it, etc. should be fairly short; gov't is formed by consent of the people.*/
	
	/*make this para part of the introduction?*/
        However favorable some may view Locke"s theory in government, Jonathan Boucher, in his A view of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution in Thirteen Discourses Preached in North America Between the Years 1763 and 1775,  criticized Locke"s scriptures as "the useless and impractical subtleties of metaphysical definitions". According to Bucher, government is not a contract, but rather is "every man"s duty". He condemned Locke"s ideas as a form of disobedience. Instead Bucher argues that the government as well as its rulers is "enjoined by the positive commands of God; and therefore when Christians were disobedient to human ordinances, they are also disobedient to God." Even if a government is violating human rights it"s still "our duty not to disturb and destroy the peace of the community"however humiliating"it was wise and merciful in the blessed Author of our religion not to add any new impulse". 
        Boucher also suggested that "it is by being included with the pale of civil polity and government that a man takes his rank in society as a freeman", a direct opposition to Locke, who believes that the government takes some liberty away from the people. 
     Christians shouldn"t resist government
     Active obedience and passive obdience