Locke had a rather more humane view of society. He denied the existence of force and believed that everything was to be dealt with by law. He viewed individuals as independents having the ability to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons however way they feel abides and fits with the laws of nature (Locke, pg 69). As we are all living creatures of the same species, born to all the same advantages of nature, we should therefore be equal among one another. No one is allowed to invade another’s privacy and no one is entitled to another’s property. Every man has a property in his own person and no person has any right to it but himself. To elaborate, he gave the wild Indian as an example, stating that ‘The venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure and yet a tenant in common, must be his and a part of him, and no one else has the right to it before it does him good for the support of his life’ (Locke, pg 71). From a realistic and a human-nature perspective, Locke does not underestimate the unlimited and unrestricted power of liberation and how far it can lead. Man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty and for that reason, he acknowledged that liberty abusers do exist, that offenders and lawbreakers do exist and hence, a political and civil society must be formed. People are required to give up their natural power and capitulate it to the hands of the community which then acts on their behalf and to their defense. It is the society that decides on rules of conduct and what is considered right and wrong, the severity of a crime and the punishment it deserves in order to achieve fair justice. ‘Those who abuse liberty and cause harm to another, declare themselves to live by another rule than that of reason and justice and have the right to be punished and be executioners of the law of nature’ (Locke, pg 70).
Like Locke, Machiavelli believed that we all belonged to the one God, and no being, government or ruler can surpass this higher power. But divine powers were not his main concern. His methodology was to examine political behavior as an end unto itself, without the imposition of God's will, and by discussing what is rather than what should be. Human beings in nature and how rulers must act to win sovereignty of their state were the focus and the message of his book. Not always as demonic as he is considered, Machiavelli implies that people have moral obligations, that people clearly know what morality is, and thus they expect their prince to appear to have the qualities of kindness, compassion, faith, honesty, humanity, and religion. And indeed he should be so, but contrary to Locke, if circumstances and fortune require him to be the opposite, then he knows just how (Machiavelli pg, 57). Like Locke, he talks about abstaining from ones property. He states that a prince must refrain from the property of his subjects and the citizens and their women, since it is easier to forget the death of their father than the loss of an inheritance (Machiavelli, pg 54). Like Locke, he also believes in fair justice but only when required, that if it proves necessary to execute someone, then it is to be done given there is proper justification and manifest reason for it. So how can Machiavelli believe in fair justice while he supports injustice when the need arises? It is no surprise that Machiavelli can be interpreted as an unrealistic, evil and cynical character by some, especially when compared to the good instincts of Locke. However, when these statements are examined in the context of ‘The Prince’ in its entirety and in the context of history, it is plain to see that the well being of his homeland, was Machiavelli's only concern.
Locke believed the social contract was the basis of society. His version emphasized a contract between the governors and the governed. He believed that man is guided by reason and conscience even in a state of nature. He saw that in accepting government, man still retained his natural rights because being guided by reason and conscience is certainly better than being guided by money and greed. John Locke believes that humans need to organize their government so that no one's natural rights are infringed upon. With that, is the need for the people to set up a ruler on earth, who they feel they can entrust with authority to judge and determine all the controversies and compensate for injuries that may happen to any member of their community (Locke, pg 73). Unlike Machiavelli, he believed that principles of conduct were rational and humans could be trusted to follow those principles. Locke does not forget to mention that a ruler's rights, just as everyone else’s are restrained by the laws of nature; the right of life, liberty and property. The ruler’s powers are given to him as a trust for the good of his citizens, and if this trust is broken, his powers can be revoked. Locke spoke of ‘Tyranny’ as when those in power exceed the bounds of authority and not for the good of those who are under it, but for their own private advantages (Locke, pg 78). He believes that if a ruler abuses his power and uses it for the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge and greed, rather than the preservation of the property of his people, then the people have the right to overthrow him and elect another government, by majority rule. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign while enforcing the accountability of it. It is in this sense that the community retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits its power. The sovereign is a servant of the people, which has limited power only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Locke's intent that the state be made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the individual. Therefore, it is crucial for a ruler to win the satisfaction of his people since hatred between a ruler and his people will only result in utter chaos, lack of further obedience and the termination of the government.
Machiavelli also talked about the private citizen who becomes a ruler with the favor of his fellow citizen. However, their concepts on power, rulers and the outcome of disputes certainly differed. Locke repudiated ‘Tyranny’, but when comparing Locke’s ruler with Machiavelli’s ruler, it is obvious that Machiavelli ratified tyranny. His ruler needed to portray a tyrannical attitude towards his people but only when the conditions demanded it. In Machiavelli’s mind, people had limited powers that could be easily manipulated according to circumstances and the ruler’s advantage, if and when the need arises. Machiavelli’s prince prioritizes making himself feared by his people to being loved, and consequently has all the power and respect, since fear is reinforced by a dread of punishment (Machiavelli, pg 54). He agreed with Locke that a prince must also avoid being hated, since enmity between him and his people will result in a state of war. Machiavelli believes that it is crucial for a prince to keep his subjects satisfied as this is the only power they hold. Locke’s people on the other hand, hold the power of sovereignty in its entirety. In Machiavelli terms, a prince must avoid being hated because not only will that result in anarchy, but since he seeks absolute power; if he fails to please his subjects and act as judge and participant in their disputes, then he puts himself in a state of war with his people who will eventually conspire against and kill him (Machiavelli, pg 59).
John Locke and Machiavelli have different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends of political societies. Their beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom. The concept of a moral duty to God to preserve both ourselves and fellow humans is the essence of Locke's basic Law of Nature. It is important to note that this 'Law of Nature' which imposes limitations on our natural freedoms is not behavioral. The law does not set the limit on what is physically possible for humans, but contradicting it would be to thwart God's purpose in the world and to contradict our own (God given) nature. When reading Locke’s essay on ‘Of Civil Government’, his attempts at constructing a doctrine protecting individuals’ rights to property without royal appropriation and individual ability to withdraw consent from the government at anytime can be easily inferred. By constituting a government in terms of its role in ‘the preservation of property’, Locke fulfills these aims eloquently. He trustingly relies on his assumption that man is fundamentally a good and benevolent person, which is very contrary to the Machiavellian view of human nature. Was Machiavelli therefore a ruthless person? Certainly not, but it must be stated that it was his distressing, unpleasant experiences in life that turned him into a pessimist who trusted no one. His cynicism is boldly understood throughout his realistic portrayal of nature and its people in ‘The Prince’.
Locke certainly fits the idea of justice better than Machiavelli, especially in terms of rational thinking. To him, ‘government exists to preserve justice and equality’. To Machiavelli, government also exists to maintain power and order, yet he failed to set forth his notions on equality.
Locke’s system for dealing with man’s freedom severely limits the role of the state in guaranteeing individual freedom. This certainly is the best method of preventing the perversion and abuse of the role and power of the state. His views simply stem from his faith in man and his potential to succeed independently, which collectively promotes the prosperity of the state. Despite all of his notoriety as a symbol of immorality and evil, Machiavelli is in my opinion, a misunderstood thinker. Based on the tactics of violence readily applied by our modern-day rulers, it seems laughable that Machiavelli’s preachments can be dubbed “evil”. It must be noted that Machiavelli did not endorse killing for its own sake, but specifically in connection with achieving an end that is beneficial to the prince, and therefore the state. Machiavelli repeatedly advises gaining the support of the people. He emphasized that in order for a man to maintain control of a government and better that territory, he must engage in certain actions that may be deemed immoral by the public he serves. Machiavelli argues a valid point, that the nature of man is twofold, encompassing good and evil, right and wrong, and here he creates a new genre for morality, ‘amorality’.
Was that a realistic way of thinking? Definitely, Machiavelli was a pragmatist who redefined politics in a different color, introduced a realistic view on life, humans, and the uncontrollable force of mother-nature. While his ideas were written in the times of the Renaissance, they can still be seen as impacting the modern era. Many times politicians choose to ignore the more controversial issues that exist in the world in order to maintain an image that the people like. They more often than not lie to the people in order to have higher approval ratings. The effectiveness of Machiavelli’s argument relies on the fact that the person reading his essay is an objective observer of human nature. Not leaving this to chance, Machiavelli plays a psychological game with the reader in order to convince them of his argument. He sets the stage for viewing political activity but without the lens of the church. So if we condemn Machiavelli for being evil and unrealistic because he did not wave his finger at the political realities of war, what does that imply about the American hero, Albert Einstein, whose science resulted in the atomic bomb?
