ABANILLA, KARYLLE

BSN 4F

The Origins of Classical Liberal Theory (continued) Read: Locke, Treatise on

Government, part 2, chapters 5–19. See above for source. Also read the brief passage
from John Winthrop’s On Liberty which can be found at:
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/winthlib.htm. This is very short. Compare Winthrop’s
conception of liberty to that of Locke. Here, watch the formation of the civil society that
Locke envisions. Pay particular attention to the argument against monarchy, the
argument for the separation of powers, the limits of the governmental authority (as well
as its fundamental source), and the right of revolution (if it can be called that.

John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

1. What is the “state of nature”? (What are the basic characteristics of human
beings in the state of nature?)

According to Locke, a person must use their ability to punish in order to protect their
society—that is, all of mankind—in the natural state. However, once states are
established, the ability to punish is to be employed for the good of the individual society.
Locke's notion of the condition of nature has been interpreted in a variety of ways by
interpreters. At first glance, it seems rather simple. According to Locke, "Men living
together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to
decide amongst them, is properly the condition of nature," and "Want [lack] of a
common judge, with authority, puts all men in a state of nature." Many observers have
understood this to be Locke's definition, concluding that the state of nature exists
anywhere there is habitation and no legitimate political authority that can settle conflicts.
In light of this, the state of nature is distinct from political society, where a just
government exists, and from a state of war, where people disobey the law of reason.

Simmons raises a key argument against this perspective (1993). The aforementioned
assertion is stated as a sufficient rather than a necessary condition, in Simmons'
opinion. Because the third party wouldn't have, for example, the power to create laws
for the common good, two people might be able to resolve their issues in the state of
nature without leaving the state of nature. According to Simmons, such interpretations
frequently overlook the fact that some citizens of states with legitimate governments
also live in a natural condition. These people include foreign guests (Two Treatises,
2.9), children (2.15, 118), and those with a "defect" of reason (2.60).

He argues that the state of nature is a relational concept that represents a particular set
of moral interactions that exist between individual people, as opposed to representing a
specific geographic area where there is no functioning government in place. The phrase
"state of nature" merely describes the moral obligations and rights that exist between
parties who have not consented to have their disputes arbitrated by the same legal
body. Because they either haven't given their assent or are unable to, the groups I just
mentioned are still in their natural state. A may therefore be in a natural state with
respect to B but not with respect to C.

Simmons' account stands in stark contrast to Strauss' (1953). According to Strauss,

Locke presents the state of nature as a factual account of what the earliest civilization
was like in his account of the state of nature, which may be carefully investigated to
show Locke's departure from Christian teaching. He and his supporters argue that state-
of-nature theories contradict Genesis 1 of the Bible and demonstrate how Hobbes and
Locke had similar philosophical views. Locke's purportedly Christian statements on the
Straussian account are only a cover for his profoundly anti-Christian convictions, as was
already mentioned. According to Simmons, a variety of social accounts can coexist
peacefully with the state of nature since it is a moral account. If we just know that a
people are in a natural state, we know nothing about their prosperity, peace, or warlike
tendencies; we know nothing but the rights and obligations that a people have toward
one another.

Locke's concept of the state of nature will be closely tied to this theory since natural law
establishes people's rights and their status as free and equal beings. The more
appropriate the state of nature as a metaphor for individuals, the more persuasive the
case is for accepting Locke's thesis that people are naturally free, equal, and
independent. It is important to note that none of these interpretations, in contrast to how
Kant and Rawls are commonly seen as having interpreted the concept, imply that
Locke's state of nature is merely an intellectual exercise. He thinks it's crucial that at
least some governments have been set up according to his recommendations.
Hypothetical contract and actual contract theories will typically respond to this question
differently because the main question is whether a good government can be legitimate
even if it lacks the actual consent of its citizens. The significance of whether they have
been or have not will be covered below under the topic of consent.

2. Why does Locke say that liberty in the state of nature is not the same as a
license? What prevents this?

For Locke, the state of nature is not a state of license since everyone has the right to
apply the natural law in terms of punishing those who start a conflict. It is a requirement
of license in Hobbes' eyes because he characterizes the natural state as one in which
"every man has a Right to everything; even one another's body." Hobbes goes on to
assert that as long as this human right remains, no one can be secure in the natural
state. This reveals Hobbes's conception of nature as a state of war because he equates
it with horror. Because everyone can benefit from unrestricted freedom and no one can
be sure of preserving himself, he sees it as a permanent state of conflict, chaos, and
bloodshed. Women can convince males to take any action necessary to exert control
over others in order to preserve their own existence. The significance of self-
preservation in the Leviathan cannot be overstated because Hobbes argues that man's
pursuit of self-preservation is seriously threatened by his persistent fear of death. Since
this fear is what largely maintains the world at war, people come to the conclusion that
specific laws are required to put a stop to this terror. When these principles are
rationally understood, according to Hobbes, they direct man to seek peace and put an
end to the fight in order to ensure self-preservation. This can only be shown, though,
after one's individual process of reasoning is transformed into a collective one, which
leads individuals to categorically reject the state of nature. When men manage to leave
this harsh state, they must surrender their total freedom to a Sovereign ruler in
exchange for the protection provided by the law of nature that comes next. The
development of the infamous social contract among men follows, as suggested by
Hobbes' third natural rule, which states that "men perform their agreements signed."

Given the characteristics of Hobbes' state of nature, it is evident that without the
existence of an absolute ruler to preserve the borders, punish those who break them,
and therefore maintain the covenant, the collective reason necessary to end the state of
war cannot be obtained. In contrast to war, which, according to Locke, is characterized
by "enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction," the state of nature is marked by
"peace, kindness, mutual assistance, and preservation." This contrasts sharply with
Hobbes's unitary understanding of the two states. Although Locke articulated this
distinction in a straightforward manner, Crawford B. Macpherson contends that it is
actually rather ambiguous. Locke describes this change as follows in The Second
Treaties:

Mankind coexists in peace and harmony without a common superior on Earth and with
the power to settle problems among themselves in the natural condition of affairs.
However, the State of War is established when force is used or when it is threatened to
be used against a third party while there is no universally recognized superior on Earth
to request assistance from (Locke, 1823, p. 113).
Locke acknowledges the emergence of war, which is believed to occur when people fail
to manage their actions in line with natural law, as seen by this text (or Reason, since
they are interchangeable with Locke). Since everyone has the authority to apply the
natural law to those who start a war, Locke contends that the state of nature is not a
state of license. Since bias and wrongful punishment would result from emotions like
self-love and retribution, no one should be allowed to judge their own case. Since
nature cannot work without the objectivity of a judge, Macpherson has good reason to
question Locke's separation. This suggests that, ultimately, the states of nature and war
are not as dissimilar as they might originally seem. Due to the critical requirement for a
neutral authority to which one can make an appeal when resolving conflicts in the state
of nature, the former must result in the latter.

3. What is the “law of nature” or “law of reason”?

The "rule of reason" states that people should always work to safeguard each other's
rights, property, and welfare. If everyone follows the "rule of reason," which will maintain
peace and harmony, a "state of war" can be avoided. The right to defend one's own life,
liberty, or property when they are wrongfully threatened belongs to every person in the
"state of nature," according to Locke. Any act of disobedience to the "rule of nature"
should be punished in a way that is proportionate to how serious the transgression was,
and that also serves as a sufficient deterrent against such future offenses. According to
Locke, anyone who disobeys the "law of reason," which mandates treating everyone
equally and fairly, is likewise in violation of the "rule of nature." Anyone who aspires to
have complete control over others is at war with them. In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that
the "state of nature" is actually a condition of conflict and discord between people,
contrary to Locke's claim that the "state of nature" is actually a state of harmony and
cooperation between people (1651). Locke and Hobbes argue regarding the ways in
which the "state of nature" is distinct from and contradicts the "state of war" as a result.

Every person has an inherent right to be free from the capricious or unlawful control of
others, according to Locke. Additionally, he asserts that everyone has an equal right to
be free from the authority of any government other than those that were established via
unanimous agreement. A person's life, health, freedom, or possessions cannot be
harmed without that person's permission. The freedom to act logically and the freedom
from being subjected to any unreasonable or unlawful demands by others, according to
Locke, are the natural freedoms of all people. The natural freedom of all people is not
the freedom to disobey the "law of reason" because doing so could result in losing that
freedom.

4. What are the basic commandments of this law?

Divine law, in the Christian tradition, traditionally referred to those laws that God had
directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. This makes divine law
different from natural law. Unlike divine law, which can only be known by God's explicit
revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically
states are to be bound, natural law may be comprehended by reason alone and applies
to everyone. Because of this, many academics of the seventeenth century, including
Locke, thought that not all of the Ten Commandments and even the entirety of the Old
Testament law were binding on everyone. The Ten Commandments are only applicable
to the people to whom they were given because their first word is "Hear O Israel"
(Works 6:37). As we shall see below, Locke thought that natural law could be
understood without the need for special revelation, but he did not consider it as
contradictory to include God in the argument if the relevant aspects of God's nature
could be understood by reason alone. Natural law and divine law, in Locke's view, can
overlap in terms of substance and be coherent, but they cannot coextend. Therefore,
according to Locke, it is problematic if the Bible teaches something that is at odds with
natural law rather than if it prescribes a moral code that is stricter than the one that can
be deduced from it.
5. What are the basic rights that derive from the law of nature? (Start with the
most basic right we have, and you can proceed to deduce, more or less, all the
other rights that Locke says we have— these are our basic natural rights.)

Individuals had a right and an obligation to safeguard their own lives in order to further
that aim, according to Locke, who believed that the preservation of humans was the
most fundamental human law of nature and that these essential natural rights were "life,
liberty, and property." Everyone is equal in Locke's eyes since they all have some
"inalienable" natural rights from birth. Or, to put it another way, these are unalienable
rights that God has granted. According to Locke, "life, liberty, and property" are among
the most fundamental natural rights since they ensure the survival of mankind. To
achieve that purpose, he reasoned, people have a duty and a right to defend their own
lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they disobey the law of reason.
Locke also believed that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long
as their choices do not impede the freedom of others. According to Locke, liberty should
therefore be broad. In addition to the land and other goods that the government may
sell, give away, or in certain situations even confiscate, Locke used the term "property"
to apply to a variety of other things. The notion of property, which included ownership of
oneself, included a right to one's own well-being. Although Locke and others had used
the phrase "pursuit of happiness" to explain the right to freedom of opportunity as well
as the duty to help those in need, Jefferson altered it to "pursuit of happiness."

6. How does Locke derive a right to private property beginning with the fact of
common property?

David Schmidtz claims that some readings of Locke's proviso treat unjustified
appropriation as a zero-sum game. The idea that withdrawing something from a
communal pool will leave less for others might seem logically necessary, yet this is
false. In actuality, taking something from the common pool frequently leads in resource
preservation as opposed to resource destruction. In other words, private property can
prevent a "tragedy of the commons," according to Garrett Hardin, who argued that when
there is no way to prevent others from accessing and using common pool resources,
they frequently succumb to the tragedy of overuse. According to Schmidtz, the control
rights guaranteed by the idea of private property are reasonable – justified to everyone
– since they forbid a negative-sum game. We should take resources out of the
communal pool if we want to leave behind enough useful resources for those who will
come after us.

A private property system, according to Schmidtz, also makes it much easier to satisfy
Locke's criteria. Privately held resources are frequently used for the most valuable
objectives and result in increasing levels of wealth. After appropriation, the common
pool has less resources, but access to more resources that improve people's lives is
also increased. As an example, the early immigrants in the New World seized the most
of the large unclaimed land regions, leaving little for us to do the same. They might be
considered over-appropriators in contrast to us given our clearly modest land holdings.
However, we are unquestionably in a much better place than They were, and we have
no interest in replacing them.

7. How is political or civil society distinct from other forms of society?

Recent literature has delved deeper into these issues. Davis (2014) closely considers
Locke's remark and argues that we must distinguish between lawful government and
political society. Even though only individuals who have done so are considered
members of political society, the government has legal authority over a variety of people
who have not expressed their assent. There is no sovereign, yet the government is in
power in some areas. Additionally, he thinks that in Locke's day, declaring one's desire
to cast a ballot may have constituted actual consent rather than choosing a particular
candidate to support. The former can be seen more credibly as an announcement of
intent to ally with a political group.

According to Van der Vossen (2015), in a related argument, governments do not initially
come into control of a particular territory with the consent of property owners. Instead,
according to Locke, adults (most likely fathers at first) simply begin to exercise political
authority, and individuals give their implicit consent. The consenters can be governed by
a minimum state that is supported by this implicit agreement. Treaties between these
governments would subsequently define the territorial limits. Hoff (2015) goes even
farther, arguing that certain actions of tacit consent (such as choosing not to immigrate)
are not even necessary for the creation of political duties. Instead, consent is assumed
if the government behaves in a way that shows it is answerable to the people.

8. How does Locke argue against the possibility of absolute monarchy?

Locke's analysis of the absolute monarchy is logically connected to this problem and
becomes very significant. The first reason it's significant is that, for the first time, he
provides us with a more comprehensive vision of how to establish a civil society.
Remember Locke's context here: He belonged to the Whigs, an aristocratic faction with
a mix of idealistic and practical concerns. He was opposed to the idea of an absolute
monarchy on the grounds that it went against natural rights to permit the king to
arbitrarily take away anyone's assets or life without due process.

9. What is the only legitimate means of either entering or being subject to a

particular civil society?

The most obvious understanding of Locke's political philosophy centers on the concept
of consent. His analysis starts with people who are free to act as themselves without
being ruled by a single legitimate authority that has the power to establish laws or
resolve disagreements. Locke underlines that the development of political societies and
membership in those communities occurs with the permission of the person, starting
from this natural state of freedom and independence. As a result of the law of nature,
there are some rights and obligations that naturally apply to everyone, but special
obligations can only exist if we choose to accept them. According to Locke, an individual
can only fully assimilate into society through an act of verbal agreement (Two Treatises
2.122).
10. Why would people leave the state of nature to join the civil society?

According to Locke, the foundation of government is a man's choice to choose living in

the natural state in favor of a political or civil society. To protect their fundamental rights
to life, liberty, and property, they established a political system (or property). Locke's
emphasis on a social contract that protected inherent rights had an impact on the views
of the American revolutionaries. The following excerpt is from Chapter VII of The
Second Treatise of Two Treatises on Civil Government. Man has a desire to abandon
his way of life in order to integrate into society because he believes that nature could
one day become "unsafe" and dangerous. Due to his freedom of choice, man chooses
not to abide by nature's laws, which leads him to make poor decisions and foment
violence.

11. How does Locke justify majority rule?

In contrast, Locke comes to the conclusion that people are agreeing to "unite into one
political society," where the community cedes its autonomy. Locke understands that
from that point on, it is impossible to obtain the permission of every single person, as it
"would be nonsensical for them to enter society on such terms, that is, on the premise
that the society as a whole does nothing that isn't assented to by every single member
of it." This theory makes me consider the American government, which was greatly
affected by Locke, along with others in the Second Treatise on Government. It is difficult
to understand, after reading and analyzing the Second Treatise on Government without
reference to earlier studies, why Locke's social contract theory has received so scathing
criticism. According to Locke's social contract theory, once a man reaches the age of
majority, he has the right to vote. The people established the government with their
consent to be run by the majority, "(unless they specifically agree on some number
bigger than the majority). the option to remain in or leave the nation in where they were
born. It is not surprising that many of Locke's critics reside outside of the United States
given how closely representative democracy and freedom are practiced there. I argue
that another indication of the social contract theory's validity is the Constitution's
integration of Locke's concepts.
12. What are the basic rights we give over when joining the civil society, and what
rights do we retain? Are there any substantive limits on these rights?

The cornerstones of Locke's radical political philosophy are the concept of self-
ownership and the corresponding right to own property, which are based on the well-
known claim that a man gets ownership over a resource when he combines his labor
with it. He argued that government should only be concerned with safeguarding the
lives and property of its citizens and that the existence of a minimal state is all that is
necessary because, in a perfect, anarchic state of nature, various problems would arise
that would make life more dangerous than it is now. Locke is also well-known for his
writings on tolerance, in which he championed the freedom of religion and belief (unless
when that belief was deemed unbearable!), as well as for his strong arguments against
patriarchy and hereditary monarchy. Although many see Locke's treatment of property
as one of his most significant contributions to political philosophy, it is also one of his
concepts that has drawn the most vehement criticism. There is considerable debate
regarding what Locke's idea was intended to accomplish in particular. C.B. release a
single interpretation. According to Macpherson (1962), Locke was an advocate for
unchecked capitalism accumulation. According to Macpherson's view, Locke is thought
to have placed three restrictions on the accumulation of property in the state of nature:
(1) One may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils (Two Treatises
2.31); (2) One must leave "enough and as good" for others. 3. and 2.27 (the sufficiency
restriction). One (supposedly) may only acquire property by their own labor (2.27).
According to Macpherson, the argument progresses past each of these obstacles. With
the introduction of money, the spoiling restriction is no longer a significant restriction
because value can be preserved in a medium that does not decay (2.46–47). The
establishment of private property increases productivity to such a degree that even
those who are no longer able to own land will have more options to acquire what is
necessary for survival, overcoming the sufficiency restriction (2.37).
13. What is the basic end (or goal) of civil society?

The goal of civil society, which is sometimes referred to as the environment in which we
engage in action for the common good, is to connect disadvantaged or underprivileged
people with institutions that can mobilize support to help them. A few examples of civil
society organizations are churches and other religious organisations. Absolute
monarchy, which some people believe to be the sole form of government in the world, is
incompatible with civil society, hence it is obvious that it cannot possible be a form of
civil government. Civil society aims to prevent and eliminate the problems of nature that
inevitably arise from each man being his own judge by establishing a well-known
authority to which every member of that society may appeal in the event of an injury or
dispute and which every member of that society ought to obey.

14. What are the basic powers of civil society? How are they arranged?

Locke's explanation of political society is based on a theoretical examination of the

human condition prior to the formation of communal life. Humans are entirely free in this
"state of nature," but because it is constrained by natural rules, it does not equal
complete freedom. It is a prerequisite for equality, which is a crucial part of Locke's case
in and of itself. In stark contrast to Filmer's universe, there is no natural order among
mankind. Each person is required to uphold as well as obey the law of nature, according
to which they are all naturally free and equal, subject only to "the immensely intelligent
Maker's" will. Locke's explanation of political society is based on a theoretical
examination of the human condition prior to the formation of communal life. Humans are
entirely free in this "state of nature," but because it is constrained by natural rules, it
does not equal complete freedom. It is a prerequisite for equality, which is a crucial part
of Locke's case in and of itself. In stark contrast to Filmer's universe, there is no natural
order among mankind. Each person is required to uphold as well as obey the law of
nature, according to which they are all naturally free and equal, subject only to "the
immensely intelligent Maker's" will.
15. What is the definition of tyranny?

According to Locke, tyranny is the exercise of power beyond what is right and to which
no one has a claim, just as usurpation is the exercise of power to which another has a
right. A legitimate leader is constrained by the laws of the government and works for the
people, but a tyrant breaches the laws and acts on his own behalf. Tyranny is when a
person abuses their position of authority in order to further their own interests rather
than those of people who are under their control. When the governor, however, entitled,
chooses not to establish a law and instead imposes a rule, a command, and an order,
the preservation of his people's property takes a back seat to the satisfaction of his own
ambition, vengeance, covetousness, or other irregular inclinations.

16. What are the two ways that a government (civil society) is dissolved from
within? How does Locke respond to the problem of rebellion and revolution?

Locke examines three different strategies for overthrowing a government: conquest,

usurpation, and tyranny. All of these dissolution techniques, in his opinion, are unlawful
since they go against the wishes of the populace. Force can be used to overthrow a
society or a government, but this does not give the conqueror total power. A person who
"did not consent to the conflict, and over the offspring of the prisoners themselves, or
the possessions of either, he has no power; and therefore he can have, by virtue of
conquering, no valid title himself to rule over them," according to Locke, could not have
a right to rule over them. In contrast to those who dissent, those who agree and consent
to the conquest are subject to the conqueror's "despotical rule." A usurper—someone
who attempts to usurp another person's authority—"can never have right on his side"
since one "can never come into the possession of what another has right to," according
to Locke. Locke claims that conquest is frequently referred to as a "foreign usurpation,"
which makes usurpation illegitimate as well.

In other terms, a usurper is powerless because they lack authorization. The use of
power beyond justice, which nobody can have a right to, is what Locke refers to as
tyranny. Like a usurper, a tyrant rules without the permission of the people, and without
consent, the authority he or she exerts is likewise unjust. Locke contends that while the
government can be overturned by an outside force, it can also be destroyed just as
badly if it comes from inside. "When the legislative is amended," which happens when
the ruling body starts adopting laws arbitrarily, which is exactly what the law is not
designed to do, the government can be overturned. Because the governed do not
support arbitrary laws that do not serve the interests of the people of the
commonwealth, the government is dissolved. The government may also be overthrown
whenever rules or powers are altered without popular consent. Unauthorized changes in
the government lead to changes in the law, which again dissolves the government. The
government dissolves if the monarchy inhibits the legislative body's freedom to convene
and conduct business.

Legislators work directly for the public, thus if their work is prohibited, the government
will be unable to function. Finally, Locke asserts that once the parliament or the
monarchy lowers the commonwealth to a foreign power, the government is dissolved.
Accordingly, whenever a king intervenes in the legislative assembly, it is effectively
altered, which, in Locke's words, "puts a stop to the government." As the purpose of
government is to produce a free and independent society, which is eventually lost when
a common-wealth is influenced by a foreign power, a common-wealth that is subject to
a foreign power experiences "a change of the legislature, and hence a dissolution of the
government."

The authority that a person provides to a commonwealth, in Locke's view, belongs to

that commonwealth for the rest of its existence and cannot be revoked by the person.
According to Locke, if the authority of the government is lost or dissolved for whatever
cause, "it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and
continue the legislature in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the existing form
place it in new hands, as they consider good." Because, contrary to the original, without
this there cannot be a community or a common wealth. To put it another way, the
commonwealth, or the people, hold the majority of the power after the dissolution of the
government.