Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
John Locke was an enlightened thinker from England born in Wrington, Somerset 1632 to family of Puritans (a father who even fought on the side of the parliamentarians during the English Civil War). Labeled as a contract theorist which the study of how conflicting interests build formal and informal ways of working constructively, Locke was known as the father of liberalism through his writing of the Second Treatise of Government which although written around 1680 was only published in 1689. The objective of the book was not only to defend the glorious revolution but also its aftermath and consequent Bill of Rights. His writings also pertain to political authority and what role governments should have, he does this by outlaying what he calls the state of nature and his opposition to the thought process of the divine right to rule.
(Mondal, P., 2021. Lockes Perspective of State of Nature. Yourarticlelibrary.) John Lockes idea about the state nature is the thought that the people are more or less self-governed and that this will be the utopian side of freedom in that people will be able to decide their acts as they see fit whether or not that pertains to possessions or other people around them and it will all be governed by the laws of nature and thus natural rights will be achieved. By putting this practise into place Locke prophesies that certain advancements can be achieved such as a freedom that is not dependent upon others and a moral equality in the universal understanding of the natural law. Locke says that natural law will dictate that natural rights will follow, those being that everyone has a right to life, property, and self-preservation, this being a universal and inherent right given to people by the very fact of them being human beings. He surmises that people will follow these laws of nature by their reasoning that it is the right thing to do. This can be seen in the following quote by John Locke The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind … that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions However Locke does circumvent this idea of almost anarchist state by saying how possessions should only be accumulated to the point of having one’s share and that anything after this point spoils, although contradictory he says the accumulation of wealth(money) is indefinite.
(Dhawan, 2021) Famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham when remarking on the concept of natural rights prevailing in the state of nature stated is simple nonsense, rhetorical nonsense and nonsense on stilts. Showing that Lock’s assessment and subsequent explanation of how society should be governed has its detractors. Its main opposition is to the idea that the state of nature will follow the law of nature and that the people will follow said law. It can be argued that psychologically people will innately favour themselves and their friends over the natural law. It could be seen that the state of nature can lead to war as it did many times in the past and lead to revolution as people are left behind in society and their government no longer cares about them. Also, the idea of natural rights hinges on the belief that in governmental or political organizations these rights existed in a substantial form, to begin with. The idea itself of natural rights is quite vague and can be argued ad nauseam what that encloses, with different sectors of society being able to say what they think they are entitled to. (9 Essential Criticism of The Theory of Natural Rights, 2021) Locke writes that possession or the ability to own things is a natural right as we have common ownership over the lands given to us by god . He states that a mixture of labor with activity gives you a right to it for example the farming of an animal would give you ownership of said animal. However again this can be critiqued as allowing exploitation and inequality of man over man to perpetrate. It could allow for a society of extreme wealth and severe poverty without the political power to try and keep it functioning will lead to unabashed exploitation.
When discussing the role of the state Locke gives it three roles, which are to give a settled way of interpreting the natural law, determining what breaks that interpretation, and deciding, then enacting punishments for these indiscretions. He elaborates on the need for majority consent when people pick their government and that consent is needed to maintain legitimacy in political institutions. Locke defines consent in two terms expressed and tacit. Expressed at least according to Locke is not necessary for consent to be given only tacitly. Tacit consent can be given by participating in what the state offers its citizens such as motorways or emergency services. However again tacit consent seems to lose a term and is generally participated in without the acknowledgment of the masses as David Hume points out in Of the Original Contract a peasant has no choice but to give tacit consent due to the limited options afforded to them so has no option but to take the governmental offers. It also stands to reason that for the public to give consent they also must be informed as to have any sort of political aspirations. But if this is not adhered to then the public has no obligations to power and thus is ruled mostly independently from the scrutiny needed to give real consent. (Layman, 2016)
Next to deal with is Locke’s view on revolution and when that should be executed if at all. Locke says that there is a right to revolution when the government is illegitimate. Illegitimacy comes in two forms according to Locke those being tyranny, which is described as the government violating the laws of nature, and Usurpation which is power being obtained without the majority consent of the public. Who decides whether these acts have taken place can only be the people of the nation. (Hesiod, 2021) The example Locke uses in the Second Treatise of Government is that of King James I whose son was usurped as the legitimate form of government after he enshrined greater power to parliament for the benefit of England and its commonwealth. Locke considered this Tyranny. However, it can be debated whether these are good enough reasons for revolution and whether this way of thinking harbors instability and naivety about the way people consider things. For example, Locke would say that people would only rebel when serious matters require it, and the majority of people are inclined in this way of thinking but many revolutions throughout history have been performed by minority actors or even been led to change under pretenses by a charismatic figure the rise of Nazi Germany being the most famous example.
According to Locke the executive right to punish is endowed upon all people through the state of nature making it one of our original liberties. (Locke and the right to punish 2021) He states that anyone who attempts to violate a person’s right to self-governance then the victim has the right to punish the violator. The argument against this is vast, firstly they are being a situation where the persecuted citizen is unable to dish out their idea of justice as they are unable physically or mentally also without the state to categorize crime and act as a mediator for the justice process then powerful groups could occur who can easily sway justice in their favor. Also, corruption could occur with people being punished for crimes that they did not commit but do not have the legal process to defend themselves. There are examples of this of people taking the law into their own hands that rarely ends well in modern society, it could even be argued that modern terrorism can be put into Locke’s category as the Jihadists of today could argue that the actions of the West has violated the middle east countries in the world in their quest for self-governance and their reaction is just their right to punish thus showing that this way of thinking about law and order is a slippery slope that doesnt always have the desired results.
In conclusion, John Locke would say in response to political authority that there should be many limitations put upon it as he argues it is more for the individual to distinguish themselves through self-governance and it is up to the people through state of nature to decide their fates without governmental interference. This way of thinking is probably why John Locke is still such an admired writer in the United States who has adhered to his writings a lot more than Western Europe has due to their value of self-governance being such a pervasive argument within the more right-wing section of the American electorate. (John Locke’s Influence on United States Government – PHDessay.com, 2021) It may also help as he is seen as one of the inspirations behind the American War of Independence (as well as the French Revolution). However in terms of my own opinion and whether or not I agree with John Locke’s account I have to say I find it overly naïve about human psychology in the sense that Locke surmises that people will follow the laws of nature with the interest of greater good at mind, I have to say I disagree with this people from my point of view will only act in their self-interest in the vast majority of cases with no interest of the repercussions unless they know that the consequences are serious and hence therefore provided by the state. Also, I find Locke’s view of property and ownership to be outdated and unable to stand up to the bureaucratic scrutiny of today that allows for things to run smoothly and in conjunction with what society needs. Locke says that whatever is worked on with labor is yours to own however this is not nor should it be the case as it can lead to things like malpractice or even an unequal distribution of lands or means of production. So to summarise Locke holds a more libertarian view of society and political power which I find to be outdated and unable to meet the real needs of today.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.