Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke theory of sovereignty
John Locke's view on government
Essay on civil government john locke
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke theory of sovereignty
Like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke discusses the idea of the commonwealth, or as he more frequently titles it political or civil society. Locke believes that man is born with a title to perfect freedom. This concept of freedom is a power given by the law of Nature to man for the preservation of, “his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men”(Locke 350). Man is thus given the power to judge and punish those who have infringed upon his rights. Wherever a group of men quit this executive power of the law of nature, and give it to the public, political or civil society will emerge. “And this puts men out of a state of Nature into that of a commonwealth, by setting up a judge on Earth, with authority to determine all controversies.”(352) Man chooses to enter into this civil society with the belief that it will make laws that are for the public good. By doing this man is consenting to the rule of the political body and has vowed to submit to the determination of the majority. It is here only by man’s consent that he can be part of civil society. Locke feels that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with this concept of civil society and therefore can never be a form of civil government. It places no common authority over all and thus, by investing the authority in one person, the entire system suffers. Locke feels that only through a commonwealth can man live in peace and harmony with his fellow man without the threat of harm or theft of property from others.
The concept of consent is extremely important to Locke’s theory. Without this consent man cannot be subjected to the political power of another because by nature, men are all free, equal and independent. By confirming to unite into a community man strips himself of his natural liberties and consents to the laws of civil society. Therefore, Locke asserts, “For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority.”(353) Meaning that each man gives up his own private judgments in favor of those of the majority. There are two forms of consent according to Locke, express and tacit consent. Express consent is that which man enters into a s...
... middle of paper ...
...lth. This will dissolve the society and thus the government of that society cannot remain. Governments can also be dissolved from within. 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.
The Second Treatise of Government places sovereignty into the hands of the people. The government has no sovereignty of its own, for it exists to serve the people. Wherever the law ends, tyranny begins according to Locke. 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 reversion 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."(380)
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government - “life, liberty, and property” - consent of the governed (people are giving permission to the government to rule)
John Locke describes men in a community have the rights to protect their property, which consist of his life, liberty and his estate. Furthermore, since the people reside as a community, the men living in that community have a right to elect a government. The government is not there to rule over us, but to lead and protect us. However if the commonwealth feels the government is not up to par, the people of the community may abolish the current government and reinstate new leaders. For example, if the government favors one group of people over another or they make laws that are not for the benefit of the people. Furthermore the government may not raise taxes without representation, and fourthly they must not transfer the power of making laws, it must stay in the hands where the commonwealth placed it. A government is for the good of the people elected by the people. If not, the community will remove the government and place authority in the hands of another, one who will be a leader instead of a ruler. Both the Magna Carta and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government limit the power of the authority. In the Magna Carta it states ((9) above) that the nobles and royalty won’t treat themselves to the possessions of the commoner. John Locke writes that if the government does the job for their benefit and not for the benefit of the commonwealth the community
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 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. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
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. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
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.
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
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.
In this "State of Nature" men are naturally free, equal, and independent. No one can be subjected to political power without his/her consent. Societies or communities are formed when men/women come together and agree to join or unite in order to further their interests as well as the community. When men and women join a community and agree to form a legislature, they give their individual power to the community. Locke believes that the power given to the legislator or assembly can be no more than the amount of power possessed by the individual people in their prior state of nature.
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.
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.
According to John Locke, the State of Nature ends once people agree to transfer their right to punish transgressors of the natural law to the Sovereign. This figure assumes all the power but the rest of people obey him on voluntary terms. If a king or government becomes tyrannical or incapable of protecting the citizens and their property, people have the right to revolt and change