His first premise is somewhat necessarily one-dimensional (somewhat similar to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" as a one-dimensional or irreducible axiom): i.e., every man owns himself and his labor. That Lockean axiom is fair and just. However, a second dimension is logically given by Locke: if departure from this justness occurs, by iniquity (and it apparently does, throughout history), then a second dimension, of adjudication, is necessary: Locke's "social contract," which arises by "consent of the individuals establishing goverance." The main criticism, thereupon, is the lack of correlation between any given "present social-adjudication needs" (arising (or "caused") by various types and patterns of iniquity) and a comparatively-loosely constructed social contract developed in a particular milieu.. Hence, the genius of the American Constitution is a more comprehensive social contract; i.e., Locke's blueprint is a more general one, and, to work well (or "justly") over the centuries, a social contract must be a more elaborated blueprint, as evidenced by the American Founders' success. The same general critique of Locke--that he, being less specific, did not "go far enough," is similar to the critique Hegel applied to Kant.