I find the textual basis for this interpretation very flimsy, in fact there is clear erm erm  erm textual evidence for precisely the opposite and let me cite erm one instance  Locke is here talking about tacit consent and the purchase of property  and erm he says   whenever the owner who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to the government will by donation, sale or otherwise quit the said possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other commonwealth or to agree with others to begin a new one in any part of the world they can find free and unpossessed whereas he that has once by actual agreement in any expressed declaration given his consent to be of any commonwealth is perpetually and indispensably obliged to be and remain unalterably a subject to it and can never be again in the liberty of the state of nature .