A Paper on John Locke's Political Philosophies

Introduction

John Locke in his Of Civil Government: The Second Treatise proffered justifications for the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which brought the protracted struggle for dominance between the English monarchy and parliament to an end. These justifications, which form the basis of classical liberal thought were to prove to be the impetus for (at least) the letter of the American declaration of independence, and to be indispensible in shaping American democratic principles. This essay discusses Locke's premises in his arguments for representative democracy and the maintenance of natural rights.

Of The State of Nature & The Social Contract

Locke contended that before the formation of government, people existed in a state of nature, "a state of perfect freedom [for people] to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they [thought] fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature…" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 498). This state of nature, for Locke, endowed each person with certain inalienable natural rights (life, liberty, and estate [or property]), which assured him or her of individual sovereignty and inherent equality with every other person. As the Masterpieces of World Philosophy puts it, "…Locke [held] that in the state of nature, each [person] may order his life as he [or she] sees fit, free from any restrictions…in the sense that he [or she] and all others are equal" (437). Locke also believed that there were a set of eternal and absolute natural laws, which were irrevocably grounded in nature, and which human beings could discover through reasoning. [See The Great Awakening and The Enlightenment.]

Expectedly, Locke argued, people conflicted with each other in the state of nature while exercising what they considered their rights. He reasoned that since people had equal measures of natural rights, were subject to the same natural law, and were each sovereign, no person was endowed with the right to arbitrate when conflicts arose between people. Consequently, people were forced to defend what they considered their rights. However, because people are not endowed with equal abilities to defend their perceived rights, the resolution of conflicts usually went in favor of not the right, but the strong: might prevailed over right.

Locke believed that people, even in the state of nature, were rational and capable of solving problems through reasoning. People saw the need for an institution to protect them, resolve conflicts and administer justice. This, says Locke, led communities to forge a social contract (See Jean Jacques Rousseau), thereby removing themselves from the state of nature, relieving themselves of the inconveniences of that state, and creating a civil society. In entering the social contract, people pledged their deference to the government, and were guaranteed protection by it.

Locke argued further, that government is meant to serve the people (though the people ought to submit to it) since the government is subject to the people, and the people to the social contract. This is necessarily true in Locke's estimation because the society derives from the social contract, and the government from the society. For Locke, the fall of the government needs not translate into the fall of the society for the society precedes the government, and if the government fails to perform the functions for which it was enacted, the people reserve the right to replace it. Indeed, "if a government violates the social contract by endangering the securities and rights of the citizens…the people have a right to dissolve the government" (Masterpieces of World Philosophy, 438).

Of the Nature and Function of Government

Locke believed that the government should serve the people, for clearly, the purpose for which it was instituted was to protect people, resolve conflicts, and administer justice. Locke believed the government should be a "passive arbitrator" (Baradat, 77), excluding itself from the affairs of the people, interfering only when conflicts arise between the people as to the extent of their rights, resolving the conflict, excluding itself as soon as the conflict is resolved, and allowing people to go about their lives thereafter without further interference. While an earlier Social Contract theorist (Rousseau) argued that people relinquish at least most of their natural rights in order to be truly free, Locke believed that natural rights are alienable and by definition cannot be relinquished. These rights, insists Locke, are fundamental to the maintenance of true freedom. The only right, according to Locke, that people relinquish in the social contract is the "right" to subjectively defend the extent of their individual "rights". Any other rights, argues Locke, is reserved for the people.

Though he believed in the sovereignty of every person, Locke thought it was best that every person not engage in the business of ruling. Locke was an advocate of representative government. He though that people should be governed by a parliament elected by citizens who owned property. (Clearly, Locke's stand here falls short of true democracy for he denied the masses, the poor, the right to vote and by extention, political power). He saw parliament as representing the constituents and prescribed that they act according to the will of the people. Therefore, though the people did not enact laws directly, the laws were (or at least were supposed to be) a reflection of their will.

Of Private Property

Locke accorded the same status he ascribed to life and liberty to estate (or private property) based on the assumption that the accumulation of private property allowed people to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life, or as it is put in The encyclopedia of Philosophy, "men have a right to self preservation…and such things as they need for their subsistence" (499). Locke viewed property from a utilitarian perspective, as a means, or instrument, towards a desired end: the sustenance of life. He however insisted on limitations to the accumulation of private property: people could accumulate only as much as they could use, and not so much as to deny others of the same right.

He also favored private property on the grounds that it is the basis for individual identity. He believed that common property (or natural resources) becomes private property when human labor is applied to it. For Locke, it is the admixture of a natural resource and labor that creates private property, because working on a common property transfers an essence of the worker into the end product—making it a private property. He [thus inadvertently] initiated the idea of Labor Theory of Value (later propounded by the likes of David Ricardo and Karl Marx), that the value of an item is roughly determined by the amount of labor necessary to produce it. The encyclopedia of Philosophy interprets it more succinctly thus: "…labor creates value" (438). Since people transferred their essence into items even in the state of nature, Locke concludes that private property precedes organized society and hence, society has no special claims or control over property.

Locke's political ideas were to became the foundation for two fundamental, albeit opposite, economic systems: capitalism and socialism. His ideas were crucial to the development of democratic thought, and were influential in giving rhetorical wieght to the American Declaration of Independence, and impetus to the American Revolution.

Locke is regarded as history's leading classical liberal and "spokesman of a middle class revolution" (Baradat, 73)

Works Cited

• Baradat, Leon P. "Political Ideologies: The Origins and impact, 7th Edition", Prentice Hall, Inc., 2000.
• Edward, Paul. Editor, "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy", Vol. 4 & 7. Collier-MacMillan Limited, London, 1967.
• Magill, Frank N. Editor, "Masterpieces of World Philosophy", Harper & Brothers. New York, 1961.

Originally written for an Assignment in Dr. Bob Lichtenbert's Philosophy 106. Fall 2001.