A study of Lockes Second Treatise on Civil Government
Context
John Locke (1632-1704) is a predominant figure in the history of
political theory and philosophy. His most extensive work,An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding (1690), formalized empiricism, a
branch of inquiry which focuses on the experience of the sense to
gather knowledge, rather than speculation or intellectual
deduction. Locke's concept of thetabula rasathe notion that people
are born blank, with no knowledge or faults, remains a hugely
influential philosophical concept. Much Enlightenment philosophy is
based on Locke's writings, particularly his adherence to
rationality and his refutation of the importance of innate personal
traits in favor of experience in shaping personality.John Locke
published hisTwo Treatises of Governmentanonymously in 1690. Two
years earlier, in 1688, the very unpopular King James II had been
ousted in favor of King William the III and his wife Queen Mary in
theGlorious Revolution, with the help of a group of wealthy
noblemen known as the Whigs. Locke, though not living in England at
the time of the Glorious Revolution (which had some claim to its
name, having been almost entirely bloodless and peaceful) had
strong associations with the Whigs, and sought to justify the
ascension of King William (in fact, theSecond Treatisewas written
to justify resistance to king Charles II, but was published as a
defense of William's Revolution). TheTreatiseswere written with
this specific aim--to defend the Glorious Revolution. Locke also
sought to refute the pro-Absolutist theories of Sir Robert Filmer,
which he and his Whig associates felt were getting far too popular.
Although not as immediate a challenge, Locke's work also serves as
a major counter-argument to Thomas Hobbes'Leviathan,in which Hobbes
argues in favor of absolutist government to keep people from
abusing property and privacy. Many persistent rifts in political
theory today stem from the fundamental disagreements between
Locke'sSecond Treatiseand Hobbes' Leviathan.TheSecond Treatise of
Government,subtitledAn Essay Concerning the True Original Extent
and End of Civil Government,stands today as an extremely
influential work that shaped political philosophy and provided a
basis for later political doctrines, such as those set forth in the
Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
Brief Summary
TheSecond Treatise of Governmentplaces sovereignty into the
hands of the people. Locke's fundamental argument is that people
are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in
which they live free from outside rule. In the state of nature,
natural law governs behavior, and each person has license to
execute that law against someone who wrongs them by infringing on
their rights. People take what they need from the earth, but hoard
just enough to cover their needs. Eventually, people begin to trade
their excess goods with each other, until they develop a common
currency for barter, or money. Money eliminates limits on the
amount of property they can obtain (unlike food, money does not
spoil), and they begin to gather estates around themselves and
their families.People then exchange some of their natural rights to
enter into society with other people, and be protected by common
laws and a common executive power to enforce the laws. People need
executive power to protect their property and defend their liberty.
The civil state is beholden to the people, and has power over the
people only insofar as it exists to protect and preserve their
welfare. Locke describes a state with a separate judicial,
legislative, and executive branch--the legislative branch being the
most important of the three, since it determines the laws that
govern civil society.People have the right to dissolve their
government, if that government ceases to work solely in their best
interest. The government has no sovereignty of its own--it exists
to serve the people.To sum up, Locke's model consists of a civil
state, built upon the natural rights common to a people who need
and welcome an executive power to protect their property and
liberties; the government exists for the people's benefit and can
be replaced or overthrown if it ceases to function toward that
primary end.
Overall Analysis
TheSecond Treatise of Governmentremains a cornerstone of Western
political philosophy. Locke's theory of government based on the
sovereignty of the people has been extraordinarily influential
since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern
liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's
writings.Locke'sSecond Treatisestarts with a liberal premise of a
community of free, equal individuals, all possessed of natural
rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will
come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of
morality to govern them before they enter into society. Locke
presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect
themselves and their property, they must come together into some
sort of body politic and agree to adhere to certain standards of
behavior. Thus, they relinquish some of their natural rights to
enter into a social compact.In this civil society, the people
submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society; in
return, they receive the protection of the government. By coming
together, the people create an executive power to enforce the laws
and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the
executive power with authority. When, either through an abuse of
power or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to
represent the people and instead represent either themselves or
some foreign power, the people may--and indeedshould--rebel against
their government and replace it with one that will remember its
trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke'sSecond
Treatise,given his motivation in writing the work (justifying
opposition to Charles II) and publishing it (justifying the
revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a
people has the right to replace one government with another.Locke
links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited
personal property wholly protected from governmental invention; in
fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of property over the
sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging
in war, but cannot relinquish one's property, to which others might
have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--consensual, limited
government based upon natural human rights and dignity, and
unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes
theSecond Treatisea perfectly-constructed argument against
absolutism and unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract
moral notions and to a more grounded view of the self-interest that
leads people to form societies and governments.
Preface, Chapters 1-2: Of the State of NatureSummaryIn the brief
preface to theSecond Treatise,Locke expresses the hope that his
text will justify the rule of King William, and speaks against the
intellectual and moral failings of Sir Robert Filmer's writings
(please see commentary).In Chapter 1, Locke first reiterates his
arguments from theFirst Treatiseagainst Sir Robert Filmer's
writings. His points refute Filmer as follows: Adam was NOT given
absolute authority over the world and his children by God Adam's
heirs, therefore, did not have this authority No one can claim
rights since it is impossible to identify Adam's heirs today.Locke
aimed to refute Filmer's theory of the divine right of sovereignty.
Locke finishes the chapter by noting that one must not confuse
different types of power--paternal, familial, and political--for
each has very different characteristics. He defines political power
as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of
property; these laws are backed by the community, for the public
good.Locke addresses the natural instincts of people, or thestate
of nature, in order to define political power. In Chapter 2, Locke
explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one
has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He
notes, however, that this liberty does not equallicenseto abuse
others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature.
Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute
natural laws, which are universal. Locke then posits that proof of
this natural law lies in the fact that, even though a person cannot
reasonably be under the power of a foreign king, if a person
commits a crime in a foreign country they can still be punished.
Locke states that natural law simply demands that punishment fit
the crime--a person in the state of nature can redress any crime to
discourage the offender from repeating it. Locke concludes by
noting that all people are in a state of nature until a special
compact or agreement between them (which he promises to describe
later) makes them members of a political society.CommentaryIn
theSecond Treatise,Locke rises above the specifics of the political
situation described in the Introduction to outline a coherent
theory of liberal political government, based on the sanctity of
individual property and the state of nature. In Locke's state of
nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and
renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive
power of natural law.Locke's theory includes many assumptions.
First is the assumption of a system of morality--the natural law
derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would
have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable
to human actions, nor would there be any standard of "just"
punishment. Locke frequently uses the term "rights" and appeals to
conscience and "calm reason", all of which reflect his assumptions
about justice and morality.Since this is our first encounter with
the text, let's take this as an entry-point to talking a bit about
Locke's writing itself, his syntax, word choice, and so on. Oddly
enough, John Locke, the great Treatise writer and political
philosopher, had a fairly cautious relationship with language. Book
III of his very famousEssay Concerning Human Understandingis all
about language, and expresses the idea that language should only be
used to convey ideas and meanings as simply, clearly, and
economically as possible. Locke'sSecond Treatiseis actually quite
simple to read, because he moves directly from point to point, and
is not given to hyperbole or repetition. Locke is not a
rhetorician; rather than play with words or language to compel the
reader, he states his ideas as strongly and clearly as possible. He
notes in the Preface that "railing" responses to his work will not
refute his ideas--only rational arguments will. This simplicity of
Locke's writing gives his ideas a sense of compelling empirical
clarity, which can often cause one to overlook flaws in his
philosophy (which we will address later).
Chapters 3-4: Of the State of War and Of SlaverySummaryLocke
starts off by defining war as a state of "enmity and destruction"
brought about by one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's
life. The law of self-preservation, integral to the law of nature,
dictates that a person may kill another person in self-defense.
This definition rests upon the presumption that any aggression by
one person against another constitutes a challenge to that person's
freedom.By this reasoning, one can justifiably kill a thief since
an attack on one's property represents a threat to one's
liberty.Locke then outlines the differences between the state of
nature and the state of war, noting that the two are NOT the same.
The state of nature involves people living together, governed by
reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war occurs
when people make designs of force upon other people, without a
common authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to
war. Want of a common judge or authority is the defining
characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is
adequate basis for the state of war.The difference between war in
Society and war in Nature depends on when they conclude. In
Society, war ends when the "actual force is over," because both
parties can then resort to the common authorities for arbitration
of past wrongs. In Nature, war does not end until the aggressive
party offers peace andreparationsfor the damage done; until then,
the innocent party has a right to try to destroy the aggressor.
Locke notes that in the presence of a common authority that fails
to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because
the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation
of the laws of nature and justice. Locke ends the chapter by noting
that one of the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid
the state of war, for the presence of a supreme power limits the
necessity for war and increases stability and security.Locke starts
Chapter 4 by definingnatural libertyas a person's right to be ruled
solely by the laws of nature, andsocial libertyas the right to be
under no legislative power other than that founded by the consent
of the commonwealth, functioning for the commonwealth's
benefit.Locke bases his ideas about slavery on the idea that
freedom from arbitrary, absolute power is so fundamental that, even
if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is therefore
impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only
possiblestate of slaveryis the extension of the state of war,
between a lawful conqueror and a captive, when the captive has been
forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the Jews
did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for
their masters did not have full power over their lives, and
therefore, did not have full control over their
liberty.CommentaryWe should note that Locke's use of the term "war"
really means "conflict," since he addresses clashes
betweenindividualsrather thannations.In the state of nature, the
absence of authority requires individuals to protect themselves. In
society, victims can appeal to a common authority for the
resolution of disputes, when possible (there are times that this is
impossible, as in Locke's justification for killing the thief).
Locke's definition of what constitutes, justifies, and ends a state
of war continues his explication of the natural foundation of
government. We can see more and more how fundamentally all of
Locke's ideas rest on the right to personal liberty, and in the
next section we will see that he directly equates that liberty with
property, making property theTreatise's most important subject.If
we recall the context in which Locke was writing--the justification
of King William's ascension to the throne and the Whig
Revolution--another point that he makes in this section is clear.
In the closing portion of Chapter 3, Locke notes that war results
in the presence of corrupt of inept authority. Because of natural
rights, people have the right to fight against a government that
fails to represent their best interests. Sir Robert Filmer, whom
Locke was specifically addressing, and Thomas Hobbes both make
directlyoppositeclaims. Filmer says that, because of the divine
authority of kings, the people have no right to rebel against their
sovereign. Hobbes says that, because people are so base and
destructive, government must keep them in line by exerting absolute
control. Locke argues that people have the right to respond to
offensive incursions by unjust leadership as they would to
offensive incursions by other people in the state of nature.In
Chapter 4, Locke defines social liberty as the agreement to live in
a commonwealth under a central authority given a trust to act in
the best interests of the commonwealth. Once again, we must examine
word choice to better understand Locke's assumptions: the
commonwealth is established "by consent," the legislative power can
only act "according to the trust put in it."After reading these
first four chapters, we can start to understand Locke's ideas about
human nature (as opposed to the state of nature). He appears to
understand that people come into conflict with each other, steal
from each other, are aggressive to each other, and so on. But he
assumes also that people are rational enough to know their best
interest. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe that people must
have power over themselves wrested from them in order to create
functional societies. On the contrary, Locke sees personal liberty
as the key component of a society that works toward the
individual's and the commonwealth's best interest.
Chapter 5: Of PropertySummaryLocke starts by stating that,
whether by natural reason or the word of the Bible, the earth can
be considered the property of people in common to use for their
survival and benefit. He then posits a key question: if the earth
and everything on it is the common property of humankind, how does
one come uponindividualproperty?For individual property to exist,
there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things
around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of
person--each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor
that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own
labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object
becomes their own because they have added their labor. He uses the
simple example of picking an apple--the apple becomes minewhen I
pick it,because I have added my labor to it and made it my
property. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent
of humankind in general--each person has license to appropriate
things in this way by individual initiative.Locke then places a
bound on this type of acquisition--a person may only acquire as
many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their
advantage. To continue the apple example, I can only take as many
apples as I can eat before they go bad; if I take too many apples
and some of them rot and go to waste, I have overextended my
natural rights of acquisition. One can only take so much as one can
use. Locke applies these rules to land: a person in a state of
nature can claim land by adding labor to it--building house on it
or farming on it--but only so much as that person can reasonably
use without waste. Locke then defines labor as the determining
factor of value, the tool by which humans make their world a more
advantageous and rewarding place to inhabit.Locke finishes the
chapter by tracing the genesis of money. He notes that all useful
goods--food, clothing, and so on--are generally of short life span.
However, if one collects too many apples, one can then trade them
for nuts with someone who has too many of those, and thus barter
develops. Money fulfills the need for an imperishable valuation of
worth, rooted in the property of labor.CommentaryLocke's premise in
this section is quite simple: people have the right to appropriate
goods by adding their labor to that good, thus making it their own.
This right goes for all sorts of things, including land itself.
This right is bounded by what one might call the law of
subsistence--people do not have the right to take more than they
can use. Money, backed by labor and the natural rights of people,
becomes the basis for expansion beyond the subsistence level of
property.Once trade is established, it is logical for people to
want some good of common value to trade forallgoods--this need
leads to money. The limitations that Locke places on property in
the state of nature without money are as follows: one must put
one's labor into something to claim it; one cannot take more than
one can use (rule of subsistence); and money subsumes both.We have
already seen how money transcends the rule of subsistence. It also
transcends labor. For example, if I own a massive amount of land,
and I pay people money to work the land, all the fruit on that land
is still mine. I have mixed my labor with it, or rather, my labor
translated into my property--I can then sell the fruit from that
land for a profit, and I can own as I need, since I waste none of
it. I then can sell all of my goods, my property, for money. Since
everyone has agreed to the use of money, and everyone can benefit
from trading with me, I violate no natural agreements by following
this example. This process occurs in the state of nature, prior to
any social agreement. In the next section, we will see that people
enter into society to protect these unlimited rights of property,
and any society or leadership that fails to protect these
individual property rights becomes subject to overthrow.Locke
repeats himself often in this section. He also refers to God
frequently, which is somewhat uncommon for him. His arguments are
similar, based in natural logic, and a very sensible progression of
arguments, but he clothes them here in scripture.A note about Locke
and America. First of all, when he talks about America, he appears
to mean South America as much as North--Locke was writing only
shortly after the period of Spanish world domination by its wealth
of gold from the New World. Secondly, Locke's America is the ideal
model of a world ripe with God's gifts but lacking human resources.
He compares it unfavorably to England, noting that, despite all its
natural gifts, it is less pleasant since less labor has been put
into its development. Locke's historical context is illuminated in
these sections, and becomes ironic in hindsight--he refers
disparagingly to the same country that would go on to use his
arguments to fight and win independence from England.
Chapters 6-7: Of Paternal Power and of Political or Civil
SocietySummaryAll people are born with an equal right to freedom.
Why are they then under their parents power? Because they are born
without reason, the tool that people use to survive in both the
state of nature and society. Parental power extends until the child
is grown old enough (Locke uses twenty-one as an example age) to
function independently within society. Likewise, the commonwealth
at this age attributes the responsibilities and duties of an adult
to a person who reaches this age of readiness. Thus, reason leads
to personal freedom.Locke's problem here is the equation of
monarchical power with paternal power. He starts out by noting that
if the phrase were changed to "parental power"--to include the
mother in the situation--people would not make the mistake of
associating parental power with political power. Locke then notes
that political power and paternal power are totally different.
People are free of paternal power when they are old enough to
function as individuals; but political power is built on wholly
different foundations.Chapter 7 begins with Locke's description of
the first society,conjugal society between a man and a woman. Locke
then describes conjugal society as separate from political society;
in it the master and mistress of the household have power over
everyone in that household, although that power is neither absolute
(they lack the power of life and death) or political.Locke
reiterates his description of civil society as a united body of
individuals under the power of an executive that protects their
property and well being, and designs legislation to govern their
behavior. Thus the commonwealth combines the legislative power to
make laws and theexecutivepower to enforce laws, with the public's
support. The difference between this and the paternalistic society,
in which people are born into filial obligations that then extend
throughout their adulthood, is significant.Locke ends the chapter
with a description of all the ways in which absolute monarchy
violates these principles. Absolute monarchy places no common
authority over all; thus, by investing the authority in one person,
the entire system suffers. Since the monarch can impinge on
people's property and welfare without fear of retribution, the
people lack the comfort, protection, and incentive to contribute to
the good of the commonwealth. To prevent such an imbalance of
power, the legislature and executive must be placed in a collective
body. Thus, no individual is exempted from or above the laws of the
commonwealth.CommentaryThese two chapters define civil society by
describing what it isnot--paternal or conjugal society. Why should
Locke spend so much time establishing this distinction? In Locke's
time, it was very common for political philosophers such as Sir
Robert Filmer to compare kings to fathers of their subjects to
justify their absolute power. Locke was also aware of the
traditional historical notions (Locke uses the Latin
termpaterfamilias) of the family social unit centered on the father
as both the paternal and political center of powerLocke presents
paternal power, based on the assumption that young people have not
yet fully developed their reason, to underline his belief that
grown reasoning adults should become their own masters. Political
power cannot be paternal because it either assumes that people do
not have reason, or recognizes their reason and thus becomes
powerless.A similar description applies to the conjugal power
situations Locke describes. They cannot serve as models for civil
society because they are based on one of two
relationships--master/slave or parent/child. Both are poor models
for civil society: Locke has defined slavery as an extension of the
state of war, and the parental model we have already discredited as
invalid.Locke's discussion of absolute monarchy logically extends
from this discussion and becomes quite significant. First, it is
significant because he presents to us for the first time a more
detailed model for the correct way to go about establishing a civil
society. Remember Locke's context here: Locke affiliated with the
Whigs, a group of aristocrats with a mix of idealistic and
practical concerns. He challenged the idea of an absolute monarchy
on the basis that leaving the absolute monarch free to take the
property or life of any member of society without redress violated
natural rights.
Chapters 8-9: Of the Beginning of Political Societies, and Of
the Ends of Political Society and GovernmentSummaryLocke starts off
by arguing that the governing factor in civil society must be the
majority, for practical reasons. By entering into civil society,
the individual submits him or herself to the majority, and agrees
to abide by the rules and decisions of the majority.Locke then
addresses two hypothetical arguments against this model. First he
discusses the lack of historical precedence for government by
majority rule. Locke concedes that there are many examples in the
modern world and throughout history of absolute power--czars,
kings, sheiks, and so on. However, he notes that societies often
forget their origins, and that in fact "the beginning of politic
society depends upon the consent of individuals, to join into, and
make one society." He then cites historical examples supporting
this idea. He concludes once again with his paternal model, putting
great credibility in its historical accuracy--people coming
together, and willingly submitting themselves to a central male
figure's control, either within their own family or a group of
families. However, even in this situation, the establishment of
government is by consent, as it must be to ensure the peaceful
formation of all civil societies (he notes that he will address
conquest, which is clearly not consensual, in a later
portion).Since people are all born undersomegovernment, they are
not in fact free and at liberty to unite together to change that
government. Locke's response is that, although someone may bind
himself to a given government, he cannot bind his children--they
are born free and must make the decision about whether to ally
themselves with their parents' government. Once again, "consent
makes any one a member of any commonwealth." In Chapter 9, Locke
reiterates why people would give up their natural freedom to enter
into society--namely, to assure the protection of their lives,
liberties, and estates, all of which Locke considersproperty.Nature
lacks three very important things, all of which a just civil
society provides: "an established, settled, known law"; "a known
and indifferent judge"; and the "power to back and support the
sentence" In order to gain the three things above, people must
relinquish their natural rights. These include the right to do as
they wish within the bounds of the law of nature; the power to
punish the crimes committed against natural law. The first right
ispartiallygiven up by submitting oneself to the laws of civil
society, which are stricter than those of nature. The second right
is given uptotallyin favor of putting oneself under the protection
of the executive power of the society. Locke finishes by noting
that this system is contingent on the three characteristics of
civil society mentioned above--a law, a judge, and an executive
working "to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of
the people."CommentaryThis section represents the end of the first
portion of theSecond Treatise of Government.By this point, Locke
has defined the state of nature, outlined the formation and goals
of a just civil society (the word "ends" in the title of Chapter 9
should be read as "goals"), and the principles behind that
society.To review, briefly: in the state of nature, people are
completely free and independent. Everyone is subject to natural
law, however, and may execute that law when someone threatens his
or her natural rights. People amass property in the state of
nature, first by adding their labor to the land and the products of
the land, then by bartering, and eventually developing money and
acquiring the ability to gather large amounts of property together.
At this point, natural law is no longer an adequate protection for
the property and liberty of individuals, so people enter into civil
society to protect themselves. By entering into society, people
relinquish their freedom under natural law, and their right to
execute law. Instead, in this society, they establish a judicial
power to arbitrate disputes between members of the society, a set
of laws that all the members of the society must obey, and an
executive power to maintain and enforce the law. This commonwealth
is valid and just so long as these three common powers serve to the
best advantage of all of those who have relinquished their rights
to join it.Locke does a very good job of supporting many of his
ideas with references to either divine law or higher moral
imperatives, and to some extent these are important elements of his
argument, but we must always remember that property predominates.
We find Locke's elevation of property in Chapter 9, in which Locke
explicitly notes that the desire to protect property moves people
to enter society. Government forms once people begin amassing large
amounts of property, since those with property need a higher
central authority to protect it.This raises another issue: what
happens to those without property? So far, the state of nature
favors those with money, people who enter into society to protect
themselves from those who would steal from them. Why would those
without property enter into this bargain? Why give up their freedom
to protect what they lack?The answer might seem disappointing.
Locke in fact never intended or expected that those without
property would be in charge of civil society. In order for the
system to be advantageous to those with property, those without
property must be excluded from its privileges although still
protected by and subject to its laws.We should remember that
Locke's ideas were in fact progressive for his time. His
assumptions about natural rights, and freedom from arbitrary and
unjust government helped shape the creation of the United States
Constitution, which rested on Lockean principles of equality and a
government working to the best advantage of the people (although,
while not mentioned, Locke's ideas about the advantages of the
ruling class were built into that model as well).
Chapters 10-11: Of the Forms of a Commonwealth, and Of the
extent of the Legislative PowerSummaryThe majority, upon entering
into a commonwealth, get to choose their form of government. They
may choose ademocracy,in which case they retain the legislative
powers for themselves, anoligarchy,in which they submit that
legislative power to a few select persons, or amonarchy,in which
they give power to a single person. The monarchy may
behereditary,if it passes from the ruler to his son, orelected,if a
new ruler is elected by the majority's decision whenever the old
ruler dies. The majority always has the power to change types of
government. The placement of legislative power defines the type of
government since legislative power is the supreme power within a
civil state.Locke then notes that by "commonwealth" he does not
particularly mean democracy; rather he uses the term to underscore
the point that the community, regardless of its form of government,
exists for the commonwealth, for the good of all.Chapter 11 is
devoted to a study of the legislative power, which Locke has
identified as the most important part of the government. The first
rule of the legislative power is the preservation of the society.
No one may challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass
laws of their own; all such power is invested in this body by the
majority (the majority can, of course, challenge the legislative in
some instances). Every member of society must adhere to the laws
laid down by the legislative body. The limits to the power of the
legislature include the following: the legislation must govern by
fixed "promulgated established laws" that apply equally to
everyone; these laws must be designed solely for the good of the
people; and the legislative must not raise taxes on the property of
the people without the people's consent.Here, Locke brings up what
will be a constant concern: long-term office holders. This rule
becomes particularly important when the legislature's members hold
their positions for long periods of time, or even life; in these
instances, they may think of themselves as a bodyseparatefrom
society, and start working for their own best interests rather than
for society's. The legislation does not have the power to transfer
its power--it cannot give the right to make laws to anyone
else-since the people's majority have placed this power with the
legislative, and the majority's will, being the only force more
powerful than the legislature, cannot be
contradicted.CommentaryLocke has laid down the groundwork for a
civil society, and now he describes the best structure for that
civil society. He starts with the legislature because, in Locke's
model, the legislature is the supreme power in the government: it
issues the laws that the executive must enforce, and that the
judicial branch must use as a measure of justice.Although today we
may associate the ideals Locke espouses with democratic government,
he was not solely focused on democracy, by any means. In his list
of types of government, he does not favor any one above the others
(although we know of his cautions about absolute monarchies)--as
long as they adhere to his rules, they remain equally valid in his
view.Locke's concern for a legislature that serves for too long a
time is a good example of his practicality. We have discussed
Locke's faith in human rationality, but now we should note that
this faith is tempered by a caution about people's natural
appetites. If a legislative is put in the position where it can
legislate for its own benefit, Locke believes that it may well
succumb to that temptation.Locke continues to focus on property in
this section. He notes that although an officer may have the power
of life and death over soldiers in his group (to protect the common
good), he has no power over that soldier's property--the soldier's
property is, in some ways, more sanctified than the soldier's life.
We have seen this argument appear before, and we will see again
several more times before we reach the end of theTreatise.
Chapters 12-13: Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative
Power of the Commonwealth, and Of the Subordination of the Powers
of the CommonwealthSummaryLocke notes that, despite its importance,
there is no need for the legislature to always be in session. It is
not necessary to have a constant flow of new laws, and, in fact, a
perpetually active legislature carries risks of abuse, as discussed
in the last section. So the legislature, as a body or an
individual, only needs to be "active" or "in session" at certain
times, and is not perpetual.The executive, on the other hand, must
always be active, because the laws that the legislature passes must
always be enforced. For this practical reason, as well as
theoretical reasons discussed later, the executive and legislative
powers should be separated.Locke then moves on to discuss the
international character of his civil state. All of the individuals
forming the civil state and their government come together to form
a single body, and this body isin a state of nature with respect to
other states; in other words, international relations are governed
by natural law. Locke names this the federative power, the natural
power in charge of the state's international relations, and notes
that it is often conjoined with the executive power, which manages
the societywithin.Chapter 13 begins with a reminder that, despite
the high powers of the legislature, the people are still supreme
over all, and have the power to "remove or alter the legislation"
as they deem best. Thecommunityis always the true supreme
power.Within the government itself, however, the legislature always
stands supreme. Locke notes that, even in a monarchy when the
executive is vested in a single person who may also have some say
in the legislature, this person only has supreme execution,not
supreme control of the government.Locke notes that the executive's
power over the legislature does not imply that it controls the
legislature. First, if the executive impedes the meeting and acting
of the legislative when it is required, this constitutes an act of
war against the people, since they have a right to the protection
and work of that body when the state requires it. This control of
the executive over the legislative, then, is a necessary trust
placed in the executive: the legislative cannot meet constantly and
the executive presides in its absence.Lastly, Locke notes that a
city or region may experience a major change in its population and
importance, necessitating an alteration of its number of
representatives accordingly. It is the executive's prerogative
oversees any alteration, as long as it complies with fair and equal
representation within the legislative, and rectifies disorder that
may spring up in the legislative body over time.CommentaryHere
Locke introduces the notion ofseparation of powers.His arguments in
Chapter 12 are pragmatic, but we shall soon see him turn to a
theoretical discussion of why it might be necessary to divide the
executive and legislative. Locke is wary of investing any single
governmental body with too much power; a dual legislative /
executive would make Locke very concerned, since it would presents
a situation in which the governors may have different interests
than the governed, which leads to dissolution in Locke's
model.Next, Locke discusses the international character of his
civil state. Locke's idea that the state in a "state of nature"
would remain governed by natural law across boundaries is perhaps
the most outdated of all of his political theories. Much of modern
international relations is founded on the idea that one cannot
apply the rules of domestic policy to international policy. Some
modern authors who maintain that an international code of morality
must be maintained in relations between states (this is sometimes
called a "cosmopolitan" view) but this view is generally
outmoded.We should also address some of the assumptions Locke has
made about the legislative body. The notion of monarchy in which
the legislative is wholly invested in the monarch seems anathema to
Locke. Secondly, if we recall our discussion in Chapter 9 of
Locke's ideal, propertied legislative, we can spot a very revealing
phrase towards the end of Chapter 13. Locke explicitly notes that
any area or region must be represented "in proportion to the
assistance which it affords to the public." Locke's organizing
factor for representation is property, as an area's representation
is determined by the taxes it pays.Locke's introduction of
executive prerogative at the end of this section introduces an
important new component of his civil society model. Although Locke
devotes the entire next chapter to this concept, we should keep
clear his definition of prerogative as "nothing but a power, in the
hands of the prince, to provide for the public good, in such cases,
which depending upon unforeseen and uncertain occurrences, certain
and unalterable laws could not safely direct." The trust placed by
the people in the executive, just like the executive's power to
call the legislature into session, stays within the boundaries
Locke has set for his civil government.
Chapters 14-15: Of Prerogative and Of Paternal, Political, and
Despotical Power (treated together)SummaryLocke starts off by
recognizing that, in any civil society, situations will arise that
have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to
provide laws for them. In these instances, the executive may
exerciseexecutive prerogative,or simply "good judgment." The
executive is qualified to take actions that are outside the
framework of the laws (not breaking them, just not provided for by
them), if their actions advance the society's best interest. He
defines this prerogative as "nothing but the power of doing public
good without rule."In the paternal societies discussed earlier, law
wasde facto,and rule was based on executive prerogative. Locke
quickly corrects a possible misunderstanding that could arise from
this description: even though all laws stemmed from executive
prerogative, we cannot then say that the people, or the
legislative, encroaches executive prerogative by passing laws to
which the executive must be beholden. Encroachments can only be
made on the public good, not on executive privilege or rights--the
executive only has power inasmuch as the people invest in it.
Prerogative, rather, is a trust placed by the people in the
executive, which the executive is free to use so long as it uses it
fairly.A good leader will be tacitly allowed a large amount of
prerogative by his people if his judgments tend to benefit
everyone. Thus, Locke notes that "the reigns of good princes have
been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people." The
danger lies in the threat of a successor who, upon seeing the
freedom his predecessor was allowed, will claim the same freedoms
and rights based on precedent, and abuse power. In these cases, it
can be difficult for the people to wrest the power back from the
new offending leader, for he has taken as aright what is in fact
atrust.So, who judges when a leader has overstepped his
prerogative? When the people come into conflict with some part of
their government, no judge presides. Instead, the people can and
must invoke "that ultimate determination to themselves which
belongs to all mankind . . . whether they have just cause to make
their appeal to heaven" and act against the executive in these
cases.Chapter 15 is a condensation of Locke's previous discussion
of the differences between paternal, political, and despotical
power. Paternal power is power that parents have over their
children until they reach the age of reason (this power does not
cover their property). Political power is the power that each
individual in a society consents to submit to the commonwealth for
the protection of their property. And despotical power is absolute,
arbitrary power of one person to take the life and property of
another against their will. Thus, nature gives parents paternal
power, consent yields political power to the commonwealth, and
forfeiture (unwillingly) gives a tyrant despotical power over his
subjects.CommentaryThe initial compromise of legislative
power--that the executive may act without the explicit legal
consent of the legislative--is deftly justified by Locke's
explanation that the executive acts on behalf of the common good.
Thus executive prerogative upholds the most fundamental tenet of
the state--its preservation of the state. Furthermore, executive
prerogative demonstrates the trust that must exist between the
people and the executive (we saw mention of this in the executive's
right to convene, adjourn, and alter the legislative, in Chapter
13). Locke makes it very clear, by contrasting the civil society
with the paternal state, that the executive prerogative is not a
right, but a duty of the executive, and that the people always
retain the power to replace the executive.We should stop here and
consider Locke's historical context for a moment. Locke was writing
in a time in which rulers often claimeddivine rightover their
subjects; in other words, they justified their absolute power by
ascribing it to the word of God, or by actually claiming to be
descended from God. Locke'sTreatiseestablishes a new framework for
executive power, in which kings and leaders become accountable for
their actions, which must meet with public approval.What then are
to we to make of Locke's appeal to "heaven" for judgment on the
question of executive prerogative at the end of Chapter 14? When
Locke speaks here of the "law antecedent and paramount to all
positive laws of men," he refers to the law of nature. If the ruler
is abusing executive prerogative, then the people are in a worse
position under that leadership than they would be in the state of
nature. In this case, they must consult their own rational
understanding of natural law--their natural rights and
privileges--and see if these rights have been violated. If so, the
people must rebel against that leader. Locke almost always returns
to the situation in which the people have the right to rebel.
Remember that his immediate aim is to defend the Whig Rebellion, to
describe the circumstances surrounding the overthrow of King James
II and the replacement of William and Mary.Chapter 15 is simply a
rephrasing of material covered before, enhanced by Locke's
bolstered explanations of consensual political power, and how it
differs from the natural, limited power granted parents over their
children, and from the unnatural, unlimited power seized by despots
over the life and property of others (See Chapters 3 (Of the State
of War), 6 (Of Paternal Power), and 7 (Of Political or Civil
Society) for a fuller discussion of all of these conditions).
Chapter 16-17: Of Conquest, and Of UsurpationSummaryLocke starts
off by stating that an unjust conqueror never has therightto rule
the conquered. Unjust conquest is always unjust in Locke's model,
whether by petty thief or a despot. Locke then moves on to make
provisions for the cases in which there is a lawful conquest (which
he does not yet define). In lawful conquest, "The conqueror gets no
power by his conquest over those that conquered with him." In other
words, those that help the conqueror conquer cannot suffer from
having given their aid; rather, they should benefit from it.The
conqueror gets despotical power over those who relinquished their
rights and lives by waging unjust war. Locke notes the important
limitations to this power carefully. The conqueror only gets power
over the government that waged the war, not the entire populace,
unless the populace explicitly sanctioned its government's unjust
war. It would be unnatural for the conqueror to acquire despotic
rights over a people who have done nothing to deserve the loss of
their freedom. Locke goes on to note that the unjust use of force,
in any context, puts one person into a state of war with
another.Locke then continues his explanation of the limits of the
lawful conqueror's power. Recalling the prior argument that a
father cannot forfeit any of his children's rights, and remembering
that an aggressor's children have a prior right to the aggressor's
estate, a conqueror cannot seize the property of an aggressor. The
just conqueror's right extends only to thelivesof the aggressors,
not to their estates, since others have a prior claim and right to
the latter.Locke points out that this may necessitate certain
instances in which a conqueror must "remit something of his full
satisfaction." Despotic power, the power of a just conqueror over
an unjust aggressor, would indeed include seizure of that
aggressor's property, if no one else's rights were bound to that
estate. But since the rights and survival of the aggressor's family
may depend on the estate, the just conqueror must forego his lesser
right to the property in the face of the family's prior, stronger
claim. The just conqueror, by ignoring these claims, can become an
unjust aggressor.Chapter 17 gives quick attention to usurpation,
which Locke describes as domestic conquest. Usurpation is simply a
change of leadership, not of the forms of rules and government, and
is not right unless sanctioned by the people. A usurper has no just
right to the power he has taken until the people freely confirm him
as a leader.CommentaryThis is the only point in theTreatisein which
Locke deals with just action that could be considered in any way
aggressive. It is very telling, then, that this just action quickly
becomes unjust if it extends beyond the limits Locke allows for
righteous conquest. Locke's ideas of righteous conquest are what
one might expect--retribution rooted in the law of nature, and a
protector of the victim's property, privileged over his life ,on
the basis of his family's natural rights to that property. Locke
simply and elegantly extends his principles and ideas to the
question of a successful war.Locke never makes any provision or
allowance for aggressive behavior; all aggressive behavior is
performed by anunjustparty against aninnocentparty, and thus
justifies the destruction of the aggressor. Thus aggressive action
can only result in the violation of natural or civil rights, and
the surrender of those rights on the part of the aggressor. In
fact, to jump ahead, in Chapter 18, Locke notes explicitly that
"force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful
force." Locke's just member of society never stoops to force or
aggression, unless he himself is first victimized or
attacked.Although Locke would never advocate the dishonest or
forceful acquisition of another's property, his model of property
gathering (once money has been established) allows for fairly
aggressive behavior--it frees individuals to gather property
without any limitations. And while this does not represent direct
aggression against others, Locke does not even address the
potential for aggression or competition. This discrepancy exists
throughout theSecond Treatise--Locke's standards for natural and
moral behavior remain high, except where property is concerned. We
cannot know if Locke was aware of this lapse in his model, whether
it was a deliberate method of privileging property above all
else.Chapters 18-19: Of Tyranny, and Of the Dissolution of
GovernmentSummaryLocke defines tyranny as "the exercise of power
beyond right." A just leader is bound by the laws of the
legislative and works for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the
laws and acts on his own behalf. Locke notes that any executive
body--not just a m onarchy--that ceases to function for the benefit
of the people is a tyranny. He then points out factors that limit
the people from hastily opposing the government. These include:
sanctity of the executive; faith that laws will prevent necessity
of force; and the fear that a small group of individuals will never
overthrow powerful leaders with success.In Chapter 19, Locke
finally arrives at the question of forming a new government. When
the state ceases to function for the people, it is dissolved, and
may be replaced. This occurs when the legislative is changed or
usurped by a tyrannical executive power, when the legislative or
executive breaches its trust, or when the executive ignores its own
duties and renders the law meaningless, reducing society to
chaos.When the government is dissolved, the people are free to
reform the legislative in order to re-create a civil state that
works in their best interestbeforethey fall under tyrannical rule.
Why does this doctrine not lead to excessive unrest and frequent
rebellion? For several reasons: people are slow to change their old
habits and customs; if the people are miserable, they will rebel
underanysystem; and finally, revolutions occur only in the event of
the leadership's flagrant abuse of power or breach of trust. This
system, Locke argues, protects against rebellion because it allows
the people to change their legislative and laws, rather than
resorting to force to overthrow them. Locke also notes that all
concerns about revolution are foolish, because they represent a
fear of a righteous process: it is rightful and dignified for
people to rebel against unjust oppression.Locke then calls upon
William Barclay, a protector of the rights of kings, to describe
situations in which people may overthrow the kings. Locke uses
Barclay to prove that even a great defender of royal privilege
concedes that a king may abdicate himself by abusing the power of
his position, and at that point the people have the right to
overthrow him.Who judges when the leader has abused his power to
such an extent that he may be overthrown? The people, Locke says.
The people are the best judge of whether their protector is
protecting them. Locke ends by noting that, as long as society
lasts, the power that each individual gives it cannot revert back
to the individual, and, so long as any government lasts, the power
that the society gives the legislative cannot revert back to the
society. Either of these institutions may be destroyed by the
revers ion of the powers vested in them, people always being free
to "erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands,
as they think good."CommentaryLocke completes his picture of a just
civil society by returning to his original impetus for writing
theSecond Treatise--the dissolution of government in the face of
tyranny. Locke has lain his groundwork so soundly that his argument
for the dissolution of government requires no new ideas, only a
synthesis of everything covered so far. Civil society exists to
protect the property and liberty of its members--if something break
s down anywhere in its government and it no longer fulfills this
function, something has gone awry and the people have a right to
rid themselves of that government. Where does this right come from?
It comes from the natural rights described by Locke starting as far
back as Chapter 2. If the government in power is not working for
them, it is not a just government, and people would be better off
in a state of nature.Locke's tone in the last chapter becomes
stronger and more insistent than before. One gets the feeling that
the sturdiness of his ideas has solidified his confidence and his
writing style. His glib breaking down of Barclay's outmoded notions
is surprisingly humorous.Up until this point, Locke has always
relied on natural law, often cloaked as the "rule of heaven," to
arbitrate civil situations. Now, in this final chapter, when posing
the question of who is to judge when the executive or legislative
acts contrary to the trust of the people, Locke answers directly
thatthe peoplemust judge. He had placed the power of the decision
in the people previously in the text, but now he does so directly
without the shroud of divine or heavenly influence.We should note
that Locke's text is far from a call to arms, however. Locke is
anxious to prove that he is not providing a system by which
government will easily or spuriously be overthrown--in both
Chapters 18 and 19, he devotes considerable energy to showing that,
under his model, the rights of people in society are protected,
butnot in favor of less stability.Locke hoped that the "Glorious
Revolution" of William and Mary would usher in a new era of
government in England and Europe, however, the precedent of
absolute monarchy stood strong. Locke understood that his ideas
posed a threat to the power and rule that held society together;
this might help to explain why he devotes so much of his work to
explaining the stability and elegance of hi s system, under which
people could live more freely and in accordance with their natural
rights.
Questions for StudyDoes Locke's concern with protection of
property as one of the central purposes of civil society contradict
his work in defense of universal human rights?What appear to be the
assumptions about human nature on which Locke bases his depiction
of the state of nature? Be sure to use examples from the text to
support your arguments.Using theSecond Treatiseand theUS
Constitution,describe some ideas that the Constitution seems to
borrow from Locke; discuss ideas that deviate from his philosophy
as well.Discuss the implications and problems of applying Locke's
ideas to international relations. This may require some research on
modern political theory.Libertarians often cite John Locke as a
great inspiration behind their ideology. Do you agree or disagree
with this claim? Again, you might want to inform your answer with
additional reading and research, perhaps including the works of Ayn
Rand).Based on passages from theSecond Treatise,how do you feel
John Locke uses the Bible to support his arguments? What seems to
be John Locke's own relationship to scripture as a basis for
political arguments?John Locke is perhaps most famous for his
theory of thetabula rasa,(the infant's "blank slate" state, free
from good or evil). How is this idea important to hisSecond
Treatise?Discuss the risks associated with Locke's allowance of
executive privilege. Do you feel his theories adequately defend
against these risks?Discuss the difference between paternal society
and political society, as Locke sees it, and explain how paternal
society can in fact turn into a form of political society.Who does
Locke's theory of money's origin benefit the most? By retracing the
theory from its origin in natural rights, describe the assumptions
behind each step, and the result of the theory that results.