In his Second Treatise on Law and Government, John Locke outlines clear and coherent standards for what constitutes a legitimate government and what persons one such government would have authority over. Both are determined by citizens' acts of consenting to relinquish to the government part of their natural authority over their own conduct. Unfortunately, the situation becomes much less clear once we consider how his standards would apply to the political situation existing in the real world today. If we continue to subscribe to Locke's account without altering its standards, we would see a precipitous drop in the number of people whose interests existing governments are responsible for serving. In this paper I will show that with certain changes and clarifications to Locke's standards, the responsibilities of existing governments need not be allowed to shrink so drastically. This creates a tradeoff, however. Changing the standards to apply more closely to actual functioning governments has the consequence of making it more difficult to determine the legitimacy of those governments. Some of the clarity of Locke's theoretical model is lost in translating it to apply to actual instances of government.
A cornerstone of Locke's political philosophy is the idea that a government holds power legitimately only through the consent of the governed. A civil society consents to grant a particular government rule over it, and each person chooses on an individual basis to become a member of a particular civil society (II, 117). As giving such consent has far-reaching consequences over a person's life, Locke provides further explanation of what "consent" entails in this context.
Only one way exists to become a member of a civil society: express consent. From Locke's account this would have to be a fairly formal business, which the individual enters "by positive Engagement, and express Promise and Compact" (II, 122). Locke's original wording is important because it seems to imply that unless a person actually makes a public agreement to submit to government law in return for protection of person, liberty, and property, she has not expressly consented. He makes it clear that there are no alternatives to this official process if one is to become part of a civil society, (II, 122).
Even if one is not considered part of a particular civil society, she mus...
... middle of paper ...
... of a government can be measured by the effective options available to its citizens.
If we had held to Locke's standards for consent to membership in a civil society and submission to government rule, we would have concluded that most people in the world are tacitly consenting to the rule of governments created by very small groups of explicit signers of social contracts. This would lead to a bizarre picture of the political landscape very much at odds with intuition and with modern reality. By changing standards for consent to mean compliance with official requirements for citizenship when other options are available, we are able to account for those who consider themselves and are considered members of a civil society without having given explicit consent, while at the same time freeing those not given a choice from the appearance of having given consent. A government is then legitimate to the extent that its citizens have given consent according to these standards. It is one of those rare examples where laws have made the situation clearer.
Sources:
Locke, John. Second Treatise. From Two Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Nobles growing up did not have best home life a child should have. Still that leaves no excuse to murder two young innocent women and almost a young man. Some people argue that Johnathan was not in his right mind because he was high on drugs. In a way, it’s like saying someone made him do it. It is possible for anything or anybody to make someone else actually do something they didn’t want to? If the murders were premeditated, the drugs could have been a cover up. Nobles knowing, he might get caught, would make people feel like he only did it because of drugs were in his system. This goes back to people craving attention and doing anything to get
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government - “life, liberty, and property” - consent of the governed (people are giving permission to the government to rule)
Trans. William Popple. N.p., c. 1686. - c Print. The.. 4) Locke, John.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
The argument in John Locke's Second Treaty of Government is stating that the government should not be governed by a definite family, God or precedent, instead through the society. This lifetime on Earth is bursting with choices, through our agency those choices lead to consequences. If every man has the same rights as everyone else, they could enjoy their lives as long as no one disturbed the rights of others. If one man did disrupt the privileges of others, a collective law came about through the people in addition to a judge listen to and resolve their situations. The people would need to unite and build a government. Taking the opinion of others, using personal experiences they could create a new life style. T This is how the colonists existed
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.