John Lockes Text about Government - Literature review Example

Analysis of John Locke’s Text John Locke was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of liberal thinkers and known as the "Father of Classical Liberalism". He is also very crucial to the social contract theory as his work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory can also not be overlooked as they go as far as being reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. Lockes theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self in which he clearly defines the self through a continuity of consciousness. He argues that, at birth, the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. He further maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that the knowledge we acquire is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception and the general environment (Locke 401). However, this analysis will primarily focus on John Locke’s The Second Treatise on Government and how it relates to Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes’ ideas on civil governments. Second Treatise In the Second Treatise, John Locke develops a number of notable themes. It begins with an analysis of the state of nature, where individuals are under no obligation to obey one another, but is each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. It also further covers conquest and slavery, property, representative government, and the right of revolution. State of nature Locke argues that, in order to properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally (Locke 400). That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. He then states that people in this Free State do not have to seek authorization to act or depend on the resolve to carry out personal effects. He additionally proposes that he natural state should be the one of equality in which all power, jurisdiction is reciprocal, and no one has more than another does. John Locke furthermore advocates for equality of all human being and states that only God can put one above another. Conquest and Slavery It is believed that conquest provides justification for slavery. However, Locke asks, flippantly, under what conditions such slavery might be justified. He notes that slavery cannot come about as a matter of contract. He literates that slavery means to be subject to the absolute arbitrary power of another (Locke 401). It is a condition where men do not have this power even over themselves. According to Locke, he who has violated the law of nature may be enslaved Locke 401). He insists that for one to have authority over people, he must have their consent. He also discourages war that leads to slavery by removing much of the incentive for conquest in the first place, for even in a just war the spoils are limited to the persons of the defeated and reparations sufficient only to cover the costs of the war, and even then only when the aggressors territory can easily sustain such costs. Therefore, conquest does not justify slavery. Property In the Second Treatise, Locke claims that civil society was created for the protection of property. By property, Locke means life, liberty, and estate. And by saying that political society was established for the better protection of property, he claims that it should serve the private interests of its constituent members. He states that for this purpose of government to truly exist, individuals must possess some property outside of society (Loke 402). This means that in the state of nature, the state cannot be the sole origin of property, declaring what belongs to whom. Representative Government In his argument of a representative government, Locke felt that a legitimate contract could easily exist between citizens and a monarchy, an oligarchy or some mixed form. He uses the term Commonwealth to mean not a democracy or any form of government, but any independent community (Locke 403). He insists that the commonwealth must be ruled by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolution. He further distinguishes between the legislature as the maker of laws and the executive as the body that implements these laws. He finally notes that people’s rights and civil government roles provide a strong support for the intellectual movements of both revolutions. Right of Revolution Locke saw this as an obligation of the citizens and he claimed that, the people could originate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that serves their interests (Locke 409). Some of the conditions that justified a revolution were when the government tries to take away, and destroy the Property of the People or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power. These offered the basis for revolution. Thomas Hobbes He was an English philosopher, best known today for his work on political philosophy. His 1651 book, Leviathan, established social contract theory. He was the foundation of later Western political philosophy. However, he is best known for his stand on absolutism for the sovereign. Hobbes is also renown for developing some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought such as the right of the individual, the natural equality of all men, the artificial character of the political. Additionally he coined the view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of the people, and a liberal interpretation of law, which leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid. In contrast to John Locke’s believes and in reaction to the destruction and chaos caused by the English civil war, Hobbes explained that our forefathers lived in an anarchy, which he believed to be a state of nature at that time (Hobbes 91). He said that people also chose a leader to rule them therefore creating an unwritten social contract, further giving the leader absolute power. The people kept only the power to protect their own live. He argues further that the state of existence at that particular time allowed people to generally act in their own self-interest without any regard of others (Hobbes 102). According to Hobbes, this created a survival for the fittest scenario unless a superior authority or rule had to step in and decide things. This was a critique of John Locke’s assumption that people had rights to live, to enjoy liberty, and to own property. Hobbes also goes against Locke’s postulation that people expected their ruler to preserve these rights, and a ruler who violated these rights violated the natural law and broke the social contract. Thomas Hobbes supplementary believed that the contract between ruler and ruled could limit the individuals natural right to enjoy life, political equality, and the ownership of property which was completely parallel to Locke’s thinking. Niccolo Machiavelli He was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer. He was greatly involved in diplomatic responsibilities and military affairs of his republic at the time. He is renowned for his work The Prince in which he narrates his views on the importance of a strong ruler who was not afraid to be harsh with his subjects and enemies. A key to comparing the views of these two great writers can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Machiavelli believed that, people were like children not in their innocence, but in their passions. In addition, this meant that, there was need for clearly defined source of order. He continues arguing that they are ungrateful, greedy, deceptive, and fickle. However, they are also rational and interested avoiding danger. It is when they are calculating their interests they can perceive the need to join to pursue common goals, such as conquest for acquisition, protection from conquest, and protection from one another (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 165). However, since people are greedy, deceptive, fickle, and ungrateful, they need an organizing force to control their somewhat unsociable natures, hence a strong government or ruler. This ruler or government must be charged with the responsibility of shaping the ruthless and selfish human nature into a functional society. Machiavelli I contrast to John Locke believes that there is value in inciting people to action and their effectiveness in bringing about the ruler’s objectives, which presumably contribute to the common good (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 173). Machiavelli in his book, the prince further argues that, citizens love for their ruler or government cannot be deemed enough to achieve the ruler’s goals. Machiavelli says that when people are torn between fear of a consequence and the love of a ruler for whom they would face the consequence, their feelings of love will yield (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 64). Machiavelli’s subjects are always seeking the path of least danger in order to ensure their own preservation. This is not a course of travel that is likely to lead to cohesiveness or collective action. Therefore, the effective ruler or government can channel this fear into the formation and maintenance of a cohesive society in pursuit of mutual salvation. According to Machiavelli, fear is an effective motivator because it is common to most people. In addition, it is closely linked to the core directive of human nature, self-preservation. By modeling a common trail using fear to prevent digression, an effective ruler can unite his subjects in their quests for protection and direct them to the common good (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 45). Machiavelli wrote about the Prince’s nature for promotion of the welfare and goals of the state or civil society. This could mean exacting submission from those under your command through cruelty and killing those that oppose you (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 221). Machiavelli argues that there are circumstances in which deviation from the ruler’s control would be more likely to produce consequences detrimental to the collective goals, such as in times of war, it might not be enough for a ruler to be merely fearsome. Human nature is such that cruelty is occasionally required maintaining strict military discipline. However, it is important that the ruler is careful to avoid being hated. Hatred, like fear, is a strong motivator, but it serves to incite the subjects to oppose the ruler rather than support him. Machiavellis general ends-justify-the-means attitude is a far more tranquil idea of the importance of standards for rulers than that suggested by Locke. However, despite this different viewpoint and different attitude toward justice, some critical similarities can be found between Machiavelli and Locke. It is evident that both men recognize executive prerogative as necessary, and both place limits on the scope of that privilege. The virtuous prince, for Machiavelli, may not give much weight to the notion that the people must have a formal legislative body, which establishes his constraints. However, if he takes his prerogative too far and exceeds the bounds of the public interest, he will suffer the natural consequences recognized by both Locke and Machiavelli (Plamenatz, Philp &Pelczynski 121). Jean Bodin He was a French jurist and political philosopher and member of the Parliament of Paris and professor of law in Toulouse. He is best known for his theory of sovereignty. He lived when there was rampant religious conflict in France and wrote against the ultimate source of this conflict. Bodin insisted that sovereignty, which he described as the ultimate supreme power in any state was absolute and indivisible. According to his thinking, in any system of government the power to make, interpret, and enforce laws had to be held by one person or institution (Butler 49). He auxiliary maintained that, the sovereign could be a single monarch, an aristocratic council or a democratic assembly. In his writings, Bodin continued to argue that, the sovereign could not be limited by human laws since whatever institution had the right to judge if the law were being infringed would itself be the real sovereign (Butler 123). Bodin lay down the basics of absolutism in order to supplementary advocate his views. He claimed that, for there to be absolute sovereignty, there must be one and only one sovereign in every state (although it can be a body consisting of more than one person (Butler 67). He also stated that, the sovereign holds all legitimate power and should never be actively resisted and if the sovereign commands a contravention of Gods law, disobey, but accept the punishment. Bodin saw civil war as the worst of all evils. He defined sovereignty to leave no possible room for any right of resistance. According to Bodin, it is clear that the major mark of sovereign majesty is the right to impose laws generally on all subjects regardless of their consent. He then insists that if the ruler or government is to govern the state well, he must be above the law (Butler 145). Thus, the essence of sovereignty was the power to command, and commands must proceed from a single will. Since law was simply the command of the sovereign, obligation could not be conditional upon the justice of the command, but followed simply from its authenticity. Bodin thought, he had found in the existence of this principle of sovereignty a universal recipe for political stability. According to Bodin, sovereignty could be looked at as a bundle of attributes, in that light the legislative role took center stage, and other elements, provisions or marks of sovereignty could be discussed further as separate issues/entities in the governing scope (Butler 78). In doing so, Bodin came to the conclusion that sovereignty created a situation where only passive resistance to authority was justified. Absolute Sovereignty makes it clear that the public office belonged to the commonwealth, and its holders had a personal responsibility for their actions. Politics is autonomous, and the sovereign is subject to divine and natural law, but not to any church; the obligation is to secure justice and religious worship in the state. Bodin studied the balance of liberty and authority. He had no doctrine of separation of powers and argued in a traditional way about royal prerogative and its proper, limited sphere. His doctrine was one of balance as harmony, with numerous qualifications; as such, it could be used in different manners, and was. The key was that the central point of power should be above faction. Bodin allowed only monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He wrote, however, that the form of state (constitution) was to be distinguished from the form of government (administration). Conclusion It can be deducted that, although there are wide differences in the comparison of the works of the four writers, a few notable similarities can be underlined. Clear differences emerge on the sources of power, roles of the authoritative figures and the general scope of the government authority. An acceptable form of governing must be formed based on the consent of the people and the constitution. Governments and rulers must exist to ensure citizens are free and able to carry out their objectives. Ultimately, there should be justification for slavery and impersonal rule. The prince must be sovereign and act within the rule of law. Works Cited Butler, Kenneth G. The Idea of a Right. Waldwick, NJ: NewMedia Pub, 2001. Print. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. NY: Digireads.com Publishing, 2010. Print. Locke, John. "Second Treatise on Government." Meeting No. 16 (n.d.): 399-421. Print. Plamenatz, J P, Mark Philp, and Z A. Pelczynski. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Read More