John Locke - Second Treatise | Political Philosophy
Summary
TLDRJohn Locke's 'Second Treatise of Government' posits that individuals are born free and equal, possessing natural rights to life, liberty, and property. They form a social contract to establish a government for protection and justice. Locke argues for limited government, with the legislature as the supreme power, and the right to dissolve a government that fails to preserve liberty and property. His views on property rights and resistance to unjust authority have been influential yet contentious, particularly in debates over capitalism and colonialism.
Takeaways
- 📜 John Locke's Second Treatise of Government advocates that individuals are born free and equal with natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
- 🤝 The state of nature is not inherently a state of war; people form a social contract to establish political society and government for security and justice.
- 🏛️ The legislature should be the supreme power in government, making decisions through majority vote, and even the sovereign is bound by the social contract.
- 🚫 If a government acts outside its legitimate role of preserving liberty and property, it can be justly dissolved and replaced.
- 📚 Locke's work is foundational in natural law theory and liberalism but also reveals tensions and contradictions within these traditions.
- 💼 Locke's theory of property rights has been a source of debate, with some viewing him as justifying unlimited accumulation while others see capitalist foundations.
- 🌱 Locke argues that property is created by mixing one's labor with an object, but with caveats to prevent spoilage and ensure enough is left for others.
- 💵 The introduction of money in Locke's theory allows for the accumulation of more property without spoilage, implicitly accepted by society.
- 🔗 Locke's views on slavery are complex; he opposes it as unnatural but was involved in colonial administration that included slavery.
- 👥 The social contract is a two-step process: forming a political society and then deciding on governance through majority vote.
- ⚖️ Legitimate government's purpose is to preserve rights, and any government acting beyond this scope is considered illegitimate and subject to dissolution.
Q & A
What is the central argument of John Locke's 'Second Treatise of Government'?
-The central argument is that individuals are born free and equal with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. They form a social contract to establish a government to protect these rights, and the government is justified in its existence as long as it serves these purposes.
Why do individuals, according to Locke, enter into a social contract?
-Individuals enter into a social contract to form a political society and establish a government to maintain security, defend their rights, and have an impartial arbiter of justice, as the state of nature lacks established laws, impartial judges, and the power to enforce laws.
What is the role of the legislature in Locke's view?
-In Locke's view, the legislature should be the supreme power and should make decisions through a majority vote, rather than the executive. It is responsible for maintaining security and defending the rights of the people.
How does Locke define the state of nature?
-Locke defines the state of nature as a condition where individuals are free and equal, possessing natural rights, but lacking established laws, impartial judges, and the power to enforce laws. It is not necessarily a state of constant war, but it does have potential for rights violations.
What are the legitimate ends of government according to Locke?
-The legitimate ends of government, according to Locke, are to preserve the rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those who violate the rights of others.
What does Locke believe happens when a government acts outside its legitimate ends?
-Locke believes that when a government acts outside its legitimate ends, such as preserving liberty and property, it can justly be dissolved and replaced by a new government.
How does Locke's view on property rights relate to his concept of the state of nature?
-Locke's concept of property rights in the state of nature is that individuals can obtain property through their labor. This right to property is a natural right, and the state of nature is a condition where there is no established law to protect these rights, leading to the formation of government.
What is Locke's stance on slavery?
-Locke considered slavery to be unfit for human beings and a condition completely opposite of legitimate political authority. He believed that individuals cannot agree to enslave themselves as it goes against God's creation of humans with power over their own lives.
How does Locke's theory of property differ from the absolute monarchy's view of property?
-Locke's theory of property is based on the labor theory, where property is acquired through labor and has limitations to ensure enough for others and prevent spoilage. In contrast, absolute monarchy views property as derived from divine right, potentially allowing for arbitrary and unlimited accumulation of property.
What are the criteria for legitimate government according to Locke?
-The criteria for legitimate government according to Locke include having established laws, an impartial judge to settle disputes, and the power to execute laws. The government must also pursue the common good and not act beyond its right for private advantage.
What does Locke suggest is the proper response to a government that exercises arbitrary power?
-Locke suggests that when a government exercises arbitrary power, it can be justly dissolved and a new government can be formed. This is based on the idea that the government has betrayed the trust of the people and is acting contrary to the social contract.
Outlines
📜 Introduction to Locke's Second Treatise
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is a foundational text in natural law theory and liberalism. Locke argues that individuals are born free and equal with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He describes the state of nature as not necessarily a state of war, but one where people would generally seek peace. To better secure their rights and establish an impartial system of justice, individuals form a social contract, creating political society and government. Locke contends that the legislature should hold supreme power, and decisions should be made by majority vote. The sovereign is bound by this contract and cannot exercise power arbitrarily. If the government fails to preserve liberty and property, it can be justly dissolved, and a new government can be established.
🌳 Locke's State of Nature and Social Contract
Locke's account of the state of nature and the social contract aligns with Christian scripture, emphasizing natural equality and freedom. Unlike Hobbes, Locke sees the state of nature as a condition of basic equality without inherent superiority of one group over another. He argues that all men are equal and free, but this does not extend to women or slaves. Locke's view of the state of nature is relational, not merely geographic, and can occur anytime people encounter each other without established authority. He acknowledges the potential for conflict but also the rationality of people to maintain peace and respect rights. The social contract is a way to establish a government that protects rights and provides a system of laws and justice.
🔒 Locke on Insecurity and Self-Interest in the State of Nature
Locke's text reflects ambivalence about human nature, recognizing tendencies towards both mutual aid and self-interest. He identifies reputation and the desire for esteem as significant sources of conflict. Locke believes that reason allows individuals to understand the law of nature, though he is vague on the specifics. His theory of property emerges from labor mixed with an object, but with caveats: property should not deprive others of what they need to survive, and one should not take more than can be used without spoiling. Locke's views on slavery are critical, seeing it as unfit for human beings and contrary to legitimate political authority.
🏡 Locke's Theory of Property and Wealth Distribution
Locke's theory of property is a contentious aspect of his thought. He argues that property originates from labor and that individuals can appropriate resources by working on them. However, he insists that there should be enough left for others and that property should not be wasted or destroyed. Locke's theory faces challenges when applied to countries where resources have been enclosed. He introduces money as a solution to the problem of property accumulation without spoilage, implicitly accepting an unequal distribution of wealth. Locke's proviso for enough left for others remains, potentially taking on new meaning in an era of climate emergency.
🏛️ Legitimate Government and the Right to Rebellion
Locke outlines the proper grounds for legitimate government, distinguishing it from other forms of power. He argues that government should not exercise arbitrary power like a master over a slave, as it would violate natural rights. Locke provides reasons for forming a political society, including the lack of established law, impartial judge, and law enforcement. The social contract in Locke's view is between a preformed political society and the sovereign, who is bound by its terms. The aim of legitimate government is to preserve life, liberty, and property. Locke defines illegitimate government and argues that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society. He lists ways a government can be dissolved, including through tyranny. Locke argues for a right of rebellion against illegitimate authority, a position that gained popularity during the American Revolution and continues to inspire resistance to tyranny.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Natural Rights
💡Social Contract
💡State of Nature
💡Legitimate Government
💡Divine Right of Kings
💡Property Rights
💡Liberalism
💡Slavery
💡Reason
💡Tyranny
💡Right of Resistance
Highlights
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government outlines the narrative of individuals born free and equal with natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Individuals in a state of nature form a social contract to establish a political society and government for security and rights protection.
The legislature should be the supreme power in government, making decisions through majority vote.
The sovereign is bound by the social contract and cannot exercise power arbitrarily.
Governments that act outside their legitimate ends can be justly dissolved and replaced.
Locke's text is foundational in natural law theory and liberalism, revealing tensions and contradictions within these traditions.
The First Treatise is an attack on absolute monarchy and a critique of Robert Filmer's Divine Right of Kings.
Locke refutes Filmer's interpretation of the Bible, arguing for free and equal individuals sharing the earth.
Locke distinguishes between different types of authority: monarch, father, and slave owner, emphasizing their limitations.
The Second Treatise is self-contained and does not require knowledge of the First Treatise for understanding.
Locke's concept of the state of nature aligns with Christian scripture, emphasizing natural equality and freedom.
Locke's state of nature is not one of constant war, as most people would try to keep the peace.
Locke's political theory is built upon the idea of man knowing his place in nature due to divine instruction from God.
Locke considers slavery to be unfit for human beings and contrary to legitimate political authority.
Locke's involvement in colonial administration, including the constitutions of Carolina, which enshrined slavery, presents a contradiction in his views.
Locke provides a justification for private property, which has become contentious, with some seeing him as a capitalist hero and others as justifying unlimited accumulation.
Locke's theory of property acquisition through labor is limited by the need to leave enough for others and not to spoil what is taken.
Locke argues that the use of money implies consent to an unequal distribution of property.
Locke outlines three reasons for forming a political society: lack of established law, impartial judge, and power to execute laws.
The social contract in Locke's view is between a preformed political society and the sovereign, who is bound by its terms.
The aim of legitimate government is to preserve life, liberty, and property, and to punish those who violate others' rights.
Locke lists ways a government can be dissolved, including foreign conquest, arbitrary power, and lack of law enforcement capacity.
Locke argues for a right of rebellion against illegitimate authority, which has inspired resistance to tyranny.
Transcripts
in the Second Treatise of government
John Locke tells the following narrative
individuals are born free and equal in
possession of themselves and with the
capacity to obtain property through
their labor they enjoy natural rights to
life liberty and property and have
natural obligations of mutual love and
charity they find themselves in a state
of nature which is not a state of
constant war because most people would
try to keep the peace but due to the
potential of rights violations and to
better secure themselves with an
impartial arbiter of justice individuals
make a social contract to form a
political society the people so United
then establish a government for the
purpose of maintaining security and
defending their rights the legislature
rather than the executive should be the
supreme power and they make decisions
through a majority vote the sovereign is
also bound by the social contract and
can't exercise power arbitrarily if the
government does act outside as
legitimate ends of preserving liberty
and property it can justly be dissolved
and have a new government set up in its
place this is the basic story of the
Second Treatise and a starting point for
thinking more about Locke's political
philosophy his text two treatises of
government also contains an account of
what makes government's legitimate how
people are entitled to own things a
comparison of different types of human
Authority and an argument for the right
of resistance against unjust Authority
it's a fascinating read because it's one
of the foundational texts in natural law
theory in liberalism but it also reveals
some of the deepest tensions and
contradictions of these traditions in
the 20th century it gave rise to heated
debates over the basis of property
rights and the philosophical
justification of capitalism
I'm James Muldoon I'm a lecturer in
political science at the University of
Exeter and this is an introduction to
John Locke's two treatises of government
the first treatise the two treatises was
an attack on absolute monarchy that was
written in the context of debates over
constitutional limits on the prerogative
powers of the King of England it's
likely that Locke had written most of
the text before he left for Holland in
the summer of 1683 it also looks like
parts of the book were written over a
number of years because different
arguments in the book reflect his
changing positions the first treatise in
the book is a polemic against Robert
filmer a royalist writer of in the civil
war period who argued for a Divine Right
of Kings film his argument starts from
the idea that all human authority is
derived directly from God in the
beginning God gave the whole earth to
Adam and this title has been passed down
and subdivided up until the present all
types of authority like a monarch over
subjects a father over his family Aarav
essentially the same type this political
authority was absolute and gave a rule
of supreme authority over every aspect
of their subjects lives the consequence
for subjects were simply to recognize
the divine origins of authority and obey
their ruler as you could imagine this is
in the most popular position today so as
a result it's generally passed over
pretty quickly in classes on Locke but
we should have a quick look at Locke's
response because it sets up the basis
for his natural law theory an argument
for legitimate Authority he starts by
denying the textual basis of film his
interpretation of the Bible on Locke's
reading God gave the earth to human
beings to hold in common film as
premises are thus incorrect because the
starting point shouldn't be Adams
absolute Dominion but free and equal
individuals sharing God's gift of the
earth the second issue was with filmers
assumption that a monarch a father and a
slave owner all exercised the same kind
of power for Locke these three types of
authority need to be carefully
distinguished first parents can't be
said to exercise absolute power over
their children just like humanity's
dominion over the earth we're not
entitled on Locke's view to do whatever
we want with it
parents properly understood our
custodians of their children until they
reach an age of maturity this clearly
isn't the same
our that a master could exercise over a
slave similarly a governments power
should also be seen as limited their
authority is based on the consent of the
citizens who aren't children but fully
formed in rational human beings they
only agree to form a government to
defend their rights not to allow a
monarch to exercise arbitrary power over
them lock will returns many of these
themes in the second treatise which is
quite self-contained and doesn't require
an in-depth knowledge of the first to
understand it I know there are some
Locke enthusiasts and political
theorists will hate me for saying this
but if you imagine the first treatise as
the support act for the evening you
could probably afford to rock up a 10
when the headline starts to play the
state of nature the second more
substantial treatise begins by asserting
that the aim of the text is to establish
the origins the extent and the ends of
the civil government his account of the
legitimacy of government relied on the
same move as Hobbs's social contract
theory individuals in a hypothetical
state of nature make an original
contract that forms a political society
and government locke thought that his
account of the state of nature was in
conformity with Christian scripture and
the position that God created us in a
condition of natural equality and
freedom unlike Hobbes God actually
played a very fundamental role in
Locke's argument a lot rests on the fact
that God made us and therefore suicide
murder and harming others would go
against his plan this is also the basis
of Locke's later argument that the earth
was given to us to cultivate and to be
used by the industrious but like Hobbes
he thought that the state of nature was
a condition of basic equality in which
there was no natural superiority of one
group over another he referred to all
men being in a state of equality and
perfect freedom but who did he mean by
all men well he certainly didn't mean
women he thought that the power of a
husband over his wife originated in
nature he disagreed with Robert filmer
that this power should be an absolute
right but he did think that husbands
should govern the common interests and
property of the family this rate was
based on the customs of many different
historic
societies but Locke thought it was also
supported by a foundation in natural law
a second question is did Locke really
mean all men in his society what extent
could we see this as an argument for
universal male suffrage he didn't have
an aristocratic background but he did
become quite wealthy in his life and
liked to see himself as something of a
gentleman it can be easy to read Locke
is much more radical than he intended to
be just as that American founding
fathers were happy to declare that all
men were created equal while also being
slave owners Locke didn't support
extending the franchise beyond a very
narrow class of property earning
gentlemen there were groups both in his
time and later times such as the
Levellers and the Chartres movement that
did make such claims but Locke was not
among them when he wrote all men he
assumed that a charitable reader of his
time would have implicitly understood
the boundaries of such a group it was
only later in a second life of the book
during the American Revolution that the
radicalism of his statement was taken
more literally because Hobbes's account
of the state of nature was so
influential there can be a tendency with
Locke to read him as basically doing the
same thing he might have a slightly more
pleasant account of human nature where
people are less of an a-hole to each
other but isn't this just some warmed up
version of Hobbes's theory but if you
read Locke's text closely there is less
of a sense that this is some kind of
historic past and more of an idea that
any time people encounter each other
outside of an established Authority
they're in a state of nature this could
be travellers meeting in the woods
territory where there's a dispute over
Authority or encounters between
sovereigns who themselves are in a state
of nature with no higher power this is
somewhat ambiguous because there are
frequent references to America as a
possible state of nature and this is
even more so the case when he is talking
about property but we'll return to this
Locke tended to rely on more of a
relational account of the state of
nature that described not simply a
geographic location but any relationship
between people where they liked a higher
authority imagine a fire breaks out
between two students at school in the
playground if it's during school time
and
teachers there they're usually the ones
to decide on what happens but after
school in the same location if a fight
started it's going to be a much more
ambiguous question about how the fight
would be resolved there's also a tension
between two slightly different accounts
of the state of nature Locke wanted to
show that people are not so antisocial
that they needed a tyrant to govern them
but he also argued that they're not so
innately good that they could do without
a sovereign authority altogether in his
first depiction of the state of nature
he argued that it wouldn't be a constant
state of war he thought rational people
would be inclined to keep the peace and
respect the natural rights of others the
state of nature has a law of nature to
govern it which obliges everyone and
reason which is that law teaches all
mankind who will be consulted that being
all equal and independent no one ought
to harm another in his life health
liberty or possessions the main issue
facing people in his first account was
the problem of partiality by this he
meant that we shouldn't be a judge in
our own case because we'll tend to be
biased in favor our selves but later in
the text he provided a slightly more
pessimistic account of the dangers of
the state of nature it wasn't just me a
partiality but that every little
difference would be likely to end in a
state of war first in section 21 and
then later in Section 123 Locke painted
a very different picture of the
insecurities of a state of nature these
tensions in the text reflected his
ambivalence about human nature Locke saw
that people had tendencies both towards
mutual aid and care for others but also
towards their own self interests like
Hobbes Locke thought that one of the
biggest sources of conflict would be
over questions of reputation and the
desire for the esteem of others he was
confident that through the exercise of
Reason every man had the ability to
understand the law but he was less clear
on exactly how they did this many later
readers have expressed disappointment
about Locke's vagueness on this question
for secular thinkers today it is worth
reflecting on the fact that Locke's
entire political theory is built upon
dear of man knowing his place in nature
because of divine instruction from God
about how we ought to live without God's
divine plan the question of what are our
natural rights becomes a much more
contingent and arbitrary construction do
I have a natural right of food and water
is property or education and natural
right who decides on this and on what
basis
slavery Locke considered slavery to be a
condition unfit for human beings and one
thought was the complete opposite of
legitimate political authority he
believed that God created us and has
power over our life so we don't have
authority to agree to enslave ourselves
there were some very limited situations
in which the imagined one could become a
legitimate slave for example an unjust
aggressor defeated in war could be
either be killed or enslaved but this
state of slavery would be a continuation
of a state of war in which the victors
simply delayed taking the life of the
captor this line of argument is actually
mainly a rhetorical device to show that
those who argue that monarchs should
have absolute power are in reality
describing a condition of slavery rather
than legitimate government this
theoretical opposition to slavery is a
little embarrassing for defenders of
Locke because he invested in the slave
trading Royal Africa Company even more
so because the system of slavery
involved children of slaves being born
into slavery which on Locke's own
account was entirely illegitimate Walker
also had a lot to do with administrating
colonial affairs in America perhaps more
so than any other liberal theorist prior
to the 19th century he was the Secretary
to the Earl of Shaftesbury who is one of
the proprietors of the colony of
Carolina he also sat on the English
Council for trade and foreign
plantations and on the board of trade
Locke had over a decade of service in
colonial administration
this included revising the fundamental
constitutions of Carolina which
enshrined a system of slavery in the
colony there is a lot of debate over the
extent of Locke's involvement and
whether his later actions supported or
undermined a system of slavery if the so
called grandfather of modern liberalism
could have such double standard
it should give us cause to reflect more
critically on the fundamental principles
of liberalism concerning other issues of
gender class and inequalities property
Locke attempted to provide a
justification for the right of private
property and it's become one of the most
contentious areas of his thought for
some Locke is a capitalist hero for
providing the philosophical foundations
of the legitimacy of private property
and the defense of free markets others
see him as justifying the right of
unlimited accumulation for wealthy
English investors but there's no
evidence that Locke was intending to
provide a defense of British capitalism
his account of private property actually
shows the degree of ambivalence about
the effects of unregulated markets
chapter 5 on property looks like it was
probably inserted either before or after
the writing of the rest of the book he
begins with an argument with true
axiomatic statements though the earth
and all inferior creatures become until
all men yet every man has a property in
his own person
thus nobody has any right to but himself
so how does private property come into
existence from this position of shared
custodian ship over the earth Locke
didn't think it had to be based on the
explicit consent of others it would be
absurd to have to obtain everyone's
consent before taking a small share his
theory was that we acquired property
when we mixed our labor with an object
this might be a hunter killing a deer a
villager collecting water or a farmer
growing crops he thought that something
could be turned into property when
somebody worked on it and appropriated
it from the comments this could be any
human action that converted a
potentially useful thing into a resource
that meets our actual needs but he
immediately followed this labor theory
of property with a couple of important
caveats first there should be enough
left over for everyone else he didn't
think that my property rights should
trump the right of someone to have
enough to survive this is an important
limitation with serious consequences for
global justice if you want to be a
strict Lockean in terms of the global
distribution of wealth
depending on how you enter
enough for everyone else you could argue
for stronger efforts to counteract
current inequalities second he argued
that we didn't have a right to take so
much that it would spoil this relates
back to his conception of nature as a
gift from God it wasn't given to us to
destroy or ruin but rather to cultivate
and improve in section 34 Locke said
that nature is given not just to anybody
but specifically to the industrious and
rational to improve so people have a
right to work on and consume parts of
nature but they have absolutely no right
to waste it but there's an issue here
how can Locke's theory be applied to
countries in which nearly all of the
land and resources have been completely
enclosed does his theory mean that after
the original acts of enclosure all
subsequent changes in wealth were
perfectly legitimate like address this
issue with his discussion of money money
doesn't spoil so we now have a system
where we can potentially keep much more
than before Locke's argument on this
point revealed a certain ambiguity about
the nature of commercial society in 17th
century England but he ultimately
attempts to justify the status quo he
argued that because we use a system of
money we have therefore tacitly
consented to allow people to have more
than simply that which one to spoil by
using money we implicitly agree to the
consequences of this system which is to
say an unequal distribution of property
what happened to the proviso of so long
as there was enough left for everybody
else there is a lingering tension at the
end of the argument where Locke has
argued for a justification of wealth
inequalities but his previous Cavia
doesn't seem to have completely
disappeared the Lockean proviso that
there should be enough left for others
might take on a radical new meaning in
an era of climate emergency could we
consider the fortunes of mass by
billionaires to go against Locke's
insistence that unused property is
wasteful and an offense against nature
if there's no longer any vacant land
left what systems of justice or trader
would need to be put in place to ensure
that everyone's needs are met forming a
Commonwealth after the slight detour
through the question of private property
Locke return to the predicament of free
and equals
objects in the state of nature he wanted
to establish the proper grounds of
legitimate government as we've seen he
distinguished a political society from
other forms of power like parents over
their children and masters over slaves
for Locke a government could never
exercise the kind of arbitrary power
that would be akin to a master over
their slave because this would be in
breach of our natural rights and
contrary to the reason for which we
created political society in the first
place
Locke quietly slips in here that a
husband will be the head of the
household but that this doesn't give him
absolute power of life and death over
his wife only the power to provide for
their mutual assistance and support for
Locke women are naturally subordinated
to men in a state of nature and in civil
society it's difficult to see anything
else but a patriarchal disposition in
Locke which saw men as natural leaders
and sources of authority so if the men
who emerges heads of households in the
state of nature they come together to
escape this condition and form a
political Society in Chapter nine Locke
gives three reasons for doing so first
there's no established law which means
people have to work out for themselves
what is the law of nature this would
lead to misunderstandings and conflict
second there's no impartial judge with
authority to settle disputes which means
everyone will be deciding on their own
cases third there's no power to execute
the laws so even if you could work out a
correct judgment there's nothing to
force transgresses of the rules to
adhere to the decision Locke thought
people would agree that their condition
was unsatisfactory and as a result
transfers some of their powers to a
political society in order to establish
a government unlike Hobbes he saw this
as happening in two steps first
universal consent is required from all
individuals to come together and form a
political community the second step is
that they take a majority vote on who
will rule them the social contract
therefore is between a preformed
political society and the sovereign
unlike Hobbes version of the contract
the sovereign is a party to rather than
a result of the contract and is
therefore bound by its terms the ends of
legitimate government the aim of
Fletcher
government is to preserve the rights to
life liberty and property and to punish
those who violate the rights of others
individuals must renounce their arts to
punish aggressors but they don't give up
all their ice to a sovereign yet a being
only with an intention in ever under
better to preserve himself his liberty
and property for no rational creature
can be supposed to change his condition
with an intention to be worse the power
of the society or legislative
constituted by them can never be
supposed to extend farther than the
common good the reason this carefully
delineated scope of legitimate
government was so important for Locke
was that it provided him with criteria
to define instances of illegitimate
government ie
laws and actions that didn't pursue the
prescribed ends of the pursuit of life
liberty and property bucks argument was
that absolute monarchy was inconsistent
with civil society and was therefore
illegitimate Locke said that an absolute
monarch was still in a condition of a
state of nature in relation to its
subjects in fact one could argue that
individuals were more vulnerable in an
absolute monarchy than in a state of
nature because they now have to fear the
enormous power of a sovereign Locke turn
Hobbes's critical view of human nature
onto the sovereign itself why should the
sovereign be given such absolute power
if rulers would be just as likely as any
individual to act capriciously the
sovereign should also be bound by civil
law Falak and should be entitled to do
whatever they want the disillusion of
government Locke listed a number of ways
that a government could become dissolved
these included a foreign conquest if the
legislature resulted if the government
exercised arbitrary power or when the
government lacked the capacity to
enforce the laws the most important one
for Locke was the exercise of arbitrary
power tyranny is the exercise of power
beyond right for the benefit of private
advantage rather than public good a
government should be deemed dissolved
when it acts contrary to the people's
trust
once the previous government is
dissolved then the political community
retains an inherent right to form a new
government the big change here from
Hobbes is that suddenly
it's the people rather than just the
sovereign who has a right to decide if
the sovereign is acting justly Locke
goes much further than Hobbes in setting
out a sphere of legitimate rebellion
founded in natural law he knew this was
a very radical position but he didn't
think it would result in instability or
frequent uprisings he thought that
people were practically minded and
wouldn't overthrow the government
because of every small inconvenience he
also tried to get his critics to see
things from a different perspective he
put things like this if the government
acts contrary to natural law and
continually abuses its position then if
the government who is in opposition to
legitimate Authority and who should be
considered a rebel against civil society
so by overthrowing an illegitimate
government the people aren't rebelling
against Authority but are only
reinstating a rightful order they're
taking themselves out of the state of
nature which was produced by the tyranny
of the old government this argument for
a right of rebellion against
illegitimate Authority has proved to be
one of the most enduring and popular
aspects of Locke's political thought it
gained a second life for the two
treatises during the American Revolution
and continues to inspire resistance to
tyrants and would-be despots it would
only be in the 18th century the writings
of jean-jacques Rousseau that an even
more radical critique of politics would
be formulated that would go deeper still
to the very foundations of law property
and government
[Music]
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
The Social Contract - Thomas Hobbes & John Locke
Locke’s Political Philosophy: Key Concepts
Plot Summary Of Second Treatise Of Government By John Locke. -
Two Treatises of Government - John Locke and Natural Rights
Nozick's Entitlement Theory: The Philosophy of the Free Market - Debate
Natural rights, social contract, democracy, republicanism and limited government
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)