You are on page 1of 3
John Locke The Person • Born in 1642, Summerset, father was a Captain in a parliamentary army • Went to Oxford in '52, noted that he was idle, unhappy, and unremarkable. • Gave an address in '64 – traditionalist and authoritarian ◦ King is good, the people are beasts, etc • Same sort of time period as Hobbes, Cromwell became the King of England, but there was still a lot of chaos from the 30's and early 40's. Charles the Second came back to be King of England and the monarchy was restored. • 1666, he meets Anthony Cooper who was a high aristocrat who was still anti-royalist who opposed Charles I. He went to Oxford to get a cure for his liver disease where he met John Locke as his doctor. Where they became close acquaintances. ◦ '67 Locke moved to Cooper's house like in feudal times wherein clients lived in their master's house. ◦ Became his confident, adviser, and surgeon. • '67 wrote the essay on toleration, advocating the right to dissent, which separates him from Hobbes. Hobbes conceded that if the king does not deliver on its duties you can transfer your loyalty from the king to another sovereign, but Locke says you have an individual right to dissent. • Conflict between Charles II and Cooper, in effect Locke. ◦ Charles II had only illegitimate children, thus the legitimate heir to the throne was James. ◦ James was Roman Catholic, which was a big problem in Britain at that time. ◦ Parliament was afraid that James would restore the influence of Catholicism which would reduce the power of parliament. ▪ Parliament considered passing this 'test act' which would test whether or not you were really loyal to Roman Catholicism, and if you were then you couldn't hold certain offices, which was obviously straight discrimination, but at the time was parliament's way of defending themselves against the Vatican and the power of the Pope. • Because of Cooper's support of this he was dismissed as Lord Chancellor. ◦ A few years later, parliament passed the test act and supported a different James, one of Charles illegitimate children, a protestant, as successor to the throne. ▪ Haha, then this other James dismissed the parliament ▪ He was eventually imprisoned in the tower of London, until he was released and fled to Amsterdam • Vicks (English Democrats) were accused of trying to overthrow the king and so some of them were executed. Locke was afraid he'd be next in line so he fled to Amsterdam. • Revolution in '88 where William of Orange becomes the King. James II didn't realize that even the Torry's (Republicans) didn't really support his religious agenda, so the two parties invited William to become king of England along with Queen Mary. ◦ Locke can now return to England safely and did in 1690 • Died in 1704 Two Treatises of Government • Know one really knows when the first and the second treatise were written, so we don't really • • know which was first. Strong clash of Hobbes. First Treatise ◦ Locke wrote in response to a book by Robert Filmer who was very much for absolutism, and advocated inequality. Men over women, the experienced over the young, etc, and this inequality comes from God via the placement of your birth in a strong lineage, so every one should trace back their lineages to determine their authority among man and their position in society. ▪ This is where a lot of Locke's theological theories are formed, he says that it is untrue that Eden received the land, it was mankind who received the land from God. ▪ Even if we assume that there was one single male who assumed land and authority, how the hell are you going to trace back your lineage? ▪ Even if you could do this, is would be ridiculous, just because you have a certain ancestor doesn't mean you should have power, what if that person is a jerk? The right person should have authority regardless of their lineage. ◦ We are all born free and equal. ▪ Three elements of political power, three duties of politics • The right to make law • execution of law • the defense of the common man against outside enemies ▪ Origins of political power • why would I give up my freedom and my equality to enter into a government? ◦ Men are all made by God, and we are his property, and we have not been created for the pleasures of one another, so there is no man who is better than others. Locke is liberal so freedom is the primary value. ◦ In a state of nature we will all govern by reason because we are all born reasonable. ▪ We can understand that we are not supposed to harm each other wherein Hobbes stated that we learn morality via struggle, not that we are rational. • However, there is always the risk of war, which is why we would submit ourselves and exit the state of nature ◦ There is a distinction between a state of war and a state of nature. ◦ We need a common superior, a sovereign, etc, in order to avoid the state of war. ▪ We subject ourselves to the authority of others via a form of consent. ▪ There must be a standing rule of liberty for everybody that is derived from a proper form of legislature, so now the legislature is the form of sovereign. Laws should not be extended simple to ensure survival, but also to extend liberties! • We want to protect not only our survival, but our property. So now government must protect our property. ◦ Theory of property ▪ What is property? Where does it come from? (foreshadows Adam Smith and Karl Marx) • All fruits of the earth belong to each human being in common. (almost communist?) • Every man has a property in his own person. • The fruits of your labor belong to you ◦ If a pluck an apple out in the field, that apple is mine because of my labor • Property and profits belong to the labor, and this is unquestionable (Way Marxist) ◦ Though the water in the fountain be everyone's, no one can doubt that the water in the pitcher belongs to the one who draws it out. ▪ Limits on private property. • God has given us all things richly, but how far has he given it to us to enjoy? We cannot take more than our fair share. ◦ You can only own what you can actually enjoy. ◦ I can't amass a million apples because I will never be able to consume it, so why should I be morally allowed to take those apples from the commons? • Absolutely obvious that property belongs to those who can cultivate it. Ownership of the cultivator, not necessarily private ownership ◦ the primary assumption of this claim is that what we desire is in great abundance, we are not fighting over scarce resources like what Hobbes assumes. ▪ But then he backpedals; • Those who work harder should get more. • Labor creates value, with the invention of money, the accumulation of property occurs, and now wealth can be horded without the harm of anyone. You can do anything by which you do not injure anyone else. ◦ We need a rule by majority. ▪ Doesn't really identity what the majority is, this is now popular sovereignty yet, but is close ▪ Same law must apply to everyone if power is transferred to the community in order to preserve private and communal power. ◦ A Separation of Power/Checks and Balances ▪ in absolute monarch you cannot appeal to the law in cases where the king has violated your rights in some way. This is was just impossible, so there needs to be a system that would not allow this to happen. You need to be able to sue the government. ▪ Seek laws that protect you not just against your neighbor, but laws that protect you against kings and those in power • thus we need a consent of every individual in order to create legitimate rule, which is where we start to revive the concepts of the polity (Republic) and Democracy • One can be subjected to authority only through consent ◦ Tacit consent, which is implied, you have not signed any contract, but you still obey the law of where you are born, the only way to show your non-consent is to leave. ▪ Argues that there are three branches, Executive, legislative, and Federative • Federative – defense against outside enemies • Legislative and executive power must be separated. • Federative and Executive should probably be separated too, but doesn't necessarily need to be separated. ◦ In the US, this should probably have happened, because by law Congress is the only body that can declare war, but often times the executive branch conducts actions which can commonly be interpreted as 'war' but was never officially declared so.