"…an established, settled, known law" (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par. 124)
"…a known and indifferent judge" (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par. 125)
and
"…a power to back and support the sentence" (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par. 126)
In order to gain these three facets of civil society, each individual relinquishes some of their freedoms under natural law, and their right to execute that law. Instead, they establish a judicial power to arbitrate disputes between members of the society, a set of laws that all the members of the society must obey and an executive power to maintain and enforce the law. For Locke these three elements of civil society are essential in working towards…
“…the peace, safety, and public good of the people, and to nothing else.” (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par. 131)
For Locke the government has no sovereignty of its own, it exists to serve the people. As such the people have the right to dissolve their government if the governing body ceases to represent the people (Locke, 1988). Locke went so far as to say that the people should always be ready to rebel against their government and replace it with one that will properly perform its function. The right to revolution was an essential part of Locke’s theory of social contract (Locke, 1988).
Another important factor in Locke’s social contract theory is the idea of consent. By entering into civil society the individual consents to submit themselves to the majority, and to abide by the rules and decisions of that majority (Locke, 1988). This idea of the majority rule allows Locke to distinguish between a duty to society and a duty to government. This distinction permits for his argument of resistance without anarchy. Essentially this means that when the designated government is dissolved for whatever reason, the people remain obligated to society at large, acting through majority rule (Grant, 1987).
For Locke then…
“…the beginning of political society depends upon the individuals’ consenting to create and join into one society; and when they are thus incorporated they can set up whatever form of government they think fit.” (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par.106)
Not only is the idea of consent essential for Locke’s social contract and political philosophy but that consent must be voluntary (Locke, 1988; Wolff, 1996). This means that one person can have political power over another only if that other person has granted them the right to exercise that power. However this form of consent does not generally exist today nor did it exist in Locke’s time. To get around this problem Locke utilises the idea of tacit consent (Locke, 1988; Wolff, 1996). This means that by receiving protection or other benefits from the state you have given tacit consent to the state and therefore have universal political obligations to that state (Locke, 1988; Wolff, 1996). Locke actually broadens this to include a lot more, he says…
“If a man owns or enjoys some part of the land under a given government, while that enjoyment lasts he gives his tacit consent to the laws of that government and is obliged to obey them. This holds, whether the land is the owned property of himself and his heirs for ever, or he only lodges on it for a week. It holds indeed if .he is only travelling freely on the highway; and in effect it holds as long as .he is merely in the territories of the government in question.” (Locke, 1988, 2nd Treatise, par.119)
b) Rights of the individual
This is essentially a question of who is entitled to a superior position, the individual, or the state.
There are three main schools of thought on the relationship between the state and the individual into which most political philosophies fall a) Individualism, b) Collectivism and c) Objectivism.
The individualist argument is that although people learn from their predecessors and are interdependent in various ways the mind belongs to the individual and acts of thought must be performed by individuals (Baldwin, 1901).
The collectivist sees society as a single entity that exists over and above its individual members. The primary unit of value is the collective rather than the individual (Baldwin, 1901).
Objectivism attempts to unite the individualist and collectivist approach. It argues that when any political order comes into being it must always develop around an understanding of give and take between the society and the individuals that society is comprised of (Baldwin, 1901). Both the objectivist and the individualist agree that no individual should ever willingly surrender their freedom. The objectivist does so however with the caveat; except with the belief that in the bargain they are gaining more than they are loosing (Baldwin, 1901). The individual agrees to surrender some of their rights to the state and in return they gain some guaranteed protection and assistance to make their individual existence easier and more comfortable (Ahmad, 1998; Locke, 1988). From this we can see that the Objectivist argument is in agreement with the ideas put forward by Locke in his work the Second Treatise of Government. Objectivism and Locke argue that the sole obligation of an individual to other individuals is to respect their rights, the most elemental of these being the right to life. This constitutes the right to engage in life sustaining activity and includes the acquisition, production, and possession of property and the voluntary exchange of values with other individuals (Hampton, 1997; Locke, 1988). This objectivist argument follows that the rights of individuals cannot be protected so long as the use of physical force is left at the discretion of individuals. Therefore a society of individuals can only exist peacefully when they have established some form of government to arbitrate disagreements amongst them. The only proper function of government then, is the protection of individuals from the initiation of force by other individuals (Hampton, 1997; Locke, 1988). To perform this function the government uses retaliatory force under objectively defined laws. The government itself must also respect the rights of individuals. This need for some form of state control has to be carefully monitored though. People having freedom of choice can wilfully ignore their responsibilities and violate the rights of other individual members of society even with the knowledge that this is wrong. This flaw in the individual social relationship promotes the tendency for social systems to lean towards ever increasing legislation (Ahmad, 1998). This tendency leads the anarchist to oppose the objectivist view. Their main point is that even minimal state control unavoidably violates the individuals’ rights because it asserts a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and thus violates the individual’s right to self defence (Hampton, 1997). Even if initially in the formation of a society the individual is the beneficiary, as societies grow larger, more organised, the distribution of power between the individual and society becomes uneven. As such, the danger of the ruling minority abusing their power increases. The principle of individual liberty as espoused by Locke and the objectivists is increasingly surrendered for the good of society (Ahmad, 1998). Ironically this results in the individual being deprived of their fundamental rights at the hands of the very institutions which were created to defend them (Ahmad, 1998). The words of C.S. Lewis sum this point up nicely…
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” (Lewis, 1991, pg. 14)
Locke and the objectivists would seem to be in line with the views of Thomas Paine when he said…
"That government is best which governs least." (Paine, unknown, cf Bannon, 2005)
Conclusion
In looking at the various forms of government in the world today it can be argued that the state has gone far beyond Locke’s ideal in its attempt to promote liberty for the masses. Most governments today derive their power from the majority not because of consent or because they hold the most legitimate viewpoint but rather because they are the strongest group (Bannon, 2005). A government founded on this principle cannot be based on a social contract or on the rights of the individual. For a government to be seen as legitimate the individual must be allowed the choice to do what they believe is right and not to be coerced or blindly follow the law as dictated by the majority. If this is not the case then it can be said that the individual is being compelled into being an accessory to any injustices committed by that government. Henry D. Thoreau in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience asks the question…
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Thoreau, 1849, cf Bannon, 2005)
Thoreau appears to be saying, in accordance with Locke, that when a government is seen as being unjust, people should be able to refuse to follow its law. Locke takes this one step further and argues that each individual has the right to dissolve the corrupt government and reconstitute a new one free from prosecution (Locke, 1988). For Thoreau it is more important to develop a respect for the right, rather than a respect for law and people should have the freedom to follow this path. A government where right and wrong are not decided by the majority but by individual conscience is what it appears Thoreau and Locke where advocating (Bannon, 2005).
References
Ahmad, T. (1998). Revelation, rationality knowledge and truth. Islam International Publications.
Baldwin, J. M. (Ed.). (1901). Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology: Including Many of the Principal Conceptions of Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Religion, Mental Pathology, Anthropology, Biology, Neurology, Physiology, Economics, Political and Social Philosophy, Philology, Physical Science, and Education and Giving a Terminology in English, French, German and Italian. New York: The Macmillan company.
Bannon, A. (22 Feb. 2005). SparkNote on Civil Disobedience. <http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/civildisobedience>.
Grant, R. (1987). John Locke's liberalism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Hampton, J. (1997). Political Philosophy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lewis, C.S. (December 1991, pg. 14). American Rifleman.
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, J. (1996). An introduction to political philosophy. Oxford University Press.
