John Locke - Second Treatise | Political Philosophy

Summary

John 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:03

🌳 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.

10:04

🔒 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.

15:05

🏡 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.

20:06

🏛️ 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.

Keywords

💡Natural Rights

Natural rights refer to the inherent rights that individuals possess simply by being human. In the context of the video, John Locke argues that individuals are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are central to Locke's political philosophy and form the basis of his argument for the social contract and government's role in protecting them.

💡Social Contract

The social contract is a philosophical concept that describes the implicit agreement among individuals to form a society and surrender some freedoms to a governing authority in exchange for protection and order. The video explains that Locke believed individuals made a social contract to form political societies to better secure their rights and obtain an impartial arbiter of justice.

💡State of Nature

The state of nature is a hypothetical condition that describes how humans would exist without government or laws. Locke's narrative posits that while the state of nature is not a state of constant war, individuals within it would lack secure protection of their rights, leading them to form a social contract and establish government.

💡Legitimate Government

A legitimate government, according to Locke, is one that is formed by the consent of the governed and whose purpose is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. The video emphasizes that for Locke, the legislature should be supreme and bound by the social contract, unable to exercise power arbitrarily.

💡Divine Right of Kings

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political authority, asserting that a monarch derives their right to rule directly from God. Locke's First Treatise is a direct attack on this notion, arguing instead for a government based on the consent of the people and natural law.

💡Property Rights

Property rights are the rights of individuals to own and control property. Locke's theory of property is grounded in the idea that property is acquired through labor and that the government's role is to protect these rights. However, Locke also argued for limitations, such as ensuring enough is left for others and not wasting resources.

💡Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes individual rights, democracy, and the protection of liberties. Locke's work is foundational to liberalism, advocating for limited government power and the protection of individual rights, as discussed in the video.

💡Slavery

Slavery is a system under which individuals are treated as property to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Locke opposed slavery, viewing it as contrary to natural law and the rights individuals have to their own life and labor. The video notes the irony of Locke's involvement in colonial administration that included slavery.

💡Reason

Reason, in Locke's philosophy, is the ability to think, understand, and draw conclusions. It plays a crucial role in understanding and following the law of nature, which guides individuals in the state of nature to respect the rights of others.

💡Tyranny

Tyranny is a form of government where absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler, often unjustly and brutally. Locke argued that when a government acts outside the bounds of its legitimate purpose, it becomes tyrannical and can justly be dissolved.

💡Right of Resistance

The right of resistance is the idea that citizens have the right to oppose or resist a government that acts unjustly or tyrannically. Locke's argument for this right is a key aspect of his political philosophy and is highlighted in the video as a means to reinstate a rightful order.

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]