A study of Lockes Second Treatise on Civil Government

Context

John Locke (1632-1704) is a predominant figure in the history of political theory and philosophy. His most extensive work,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), formalized empiricism, a branch of inquiry which focuses on the experience of the sense to gather knowledge, rather than speculation or intellectual deduction. Locke's concept of thetabula rasathe notion that people are born blank, with no knowledge or faults, remains a hugely influential philosophical concept. Much Enlightenment philosophy is based on Locke's writings, particularly his adherence to rationality and his refutation of the importance of innate personal traits in favor of experience in shaping personality.John Locke published hisTwo Treatises of Governmentanonymously in 1690. Two years earlier, in 1688, the very unpopular King James II had been ousted in favor of King William the III and his wife Queen Mary in theGlorious Revolution, with the help of a group of wealthy noblemen known as the Whigs. Locke, though not living in England at the time of the Glorious Revolution (which had some claim to its name, having been almost entirely bloodless and peaceful) had strong associations with the Whigs, and sought to justify the ascension of King William (in fact, theSecond Treatisewas written to justify resistance to king Charles II, but was published as a defense of William's Revolution). TheTreatiseswere written with this specific aim--to defend the Glorious Revolution. Locke also sought to refute the pro-Absolutist theories of Sir Robert Filmer, which he and his Whig associates felt were getting far too popular. Although not as immediate a challenge, Locke's work also serves as a major counter-argument to Thomas Hobbes'Leviathan,in which Hobbes argues in favor of absolutist government to keep people from abusing property and privacy. Many persistent rifts in political theory today stem from the fundamental disagreements between Locke'sSecond Treatiseand Hobbes' Leviathan.TheSecond Treatise of Government,subtitledAn Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government,stands today as an extremely influential work that shaped political philosophy and provided a basis for later political doctrines, such as those set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Brief Summary

TheSecond Treatise of Governmentplaces sovereignty into the hands of the people. Locke's fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule. In the state of nature, natural law governs behavior, and each person has license to execute that law against someone who wrongs them by infringing on their rights. People take what they need from the earth, but hoard just enough to cover their needs. Eventually, people begin to trade their excess goods with each other, until they develop a common currency for barter, or money. Money eliminates limits on the amount of property they can obtain (unlike food, money does not spoil), and they begin to gather estates around themselves and their families.People then exchange some of their natural rights to enter into society with other people, and be protected by common laws and a common executive power to enforce the laws. People need executive power to protect their property and defend their liberty. The civil state is beholden to the people, and has power over the people only insofar as it exists to protect and preserve their welfare. Locke describes a state with a separate judicial, legislative, and executive branch--the legislative branch being the most important of the three, since it determines the laws that govern civil society.People have the right to dissolve their government, if that government ceases to work solely in their best interest. The government has no sovereignty of its own--it exists to serve the people.To sum up, Locke's model consists of a civil state, built upon the natural rights common to a people who need and welcome an executive power to protect their property and liberties; the government exists for the people's benefit and can be replaced or overthrown if it ceases to function toward that primary end.

Overall Analysis

TheSecond Treatise of Governmentremains a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. Locke's theory of government based on the sovereignty of the people has been extraordinarily influential since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's writings.Locke'sSecond Treatisestarts with a liberal premise of a community of free, equal individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into society. Locke presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect themselves and their property, they must come together into some sort of body politic and agree to adhere to certain standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact.In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society; in return, they receive the protection of the government. By coming together, the people create an executive power to enforce the laws and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the executive power with authority. When, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may--and indeedshould--rebel against their government and replace it with one that will remember its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke'sSecond Treatise,given his motivation in writing the work (justifying opposition to Charles II) and publishing it (justifying the revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has the right to replace one government with another.Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal property wholly protected from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of property over the sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but cannot relinquish one's property, to which others might have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--consensual, limited government based upon natural human rights and dignity, and unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes theSecond Treatisea perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism and unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more grounded view of the self-interest that leads people to form societies and governments.

Preface, Chapters 1-2: Of the State of NatureSummaryIn the brief preface to theSecond Treatise,Locke expresses the hope that his text will justify the rule of King William, and speaks against the intellectual and moral failings of Sir Robert Filmer's writings (please see commentary).In Chapter 1, Locke first reiterates his arguments from theFirst Treatiseagainst Sir Robert Filmer's writings. His points refute Filmer as follows: Adam was NOT given absolute authority over the world and his children by God Adam's heirs, therefore, did not have this authority No one can claim rights since it is impossible to identify Adam's heirs today.Locke aimed to refute Filmer's theory of the divine right of sovereignty. Locke finishes the chapter by noting that one must not confuse different types of power--paternal, familial, and political--for each has very different characteristics. He defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property; these laws are backed by the community, for the public good.Locke addresses the natural instincts of people, or thestate of nature, in order to define political power. In Chapter 2, Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He notes, however, that this liberty does not equallicenseto abuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal. Locke then posits that proof of this natural law lies in the fact that, even though a person cannot reasonably be under the power of a foreign king, if a person commits a crime in a foreign country they can still be punished. Locke states that natural law simply demands that punishment fit the crime--a person in the state of nature can redress any crime to discourage the offender from repeating it. Locke concludes by noting that all people are in a state of nature until a special compact or agreement between them (which he promises to describe later) makes them members of a political society.CommentaryIn theSecond Treatise,Locke rises above the specifics of the political situation described in the Introduction to outline a coherent theory of liberal political government, based on the sanctity of individual property and the state of nature. In Locke's state of nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive power of natural law.Locke's theory includes many assumptions. First is the assumption of a system of morality--the natural law derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions, nor would there be any standard of "just" punishment. Locke frequently uses the term "rights" and appeals to conscience and "calm reason", all of which reflect his assumptions about justice and morality.Since this is our first encounter with the text, let's take this as an entry-point to talking a bit about Locke's writing itself, his syntax, word choice, and so on. Oddly enough, John Locke, the great Treatise writer and political philosopher, had a fairly cautious relationship with language. Book III of his very famousEssay Concerning Human Understandingis all about language, and expresses the idea that language should only be used to convey ideas and meanings as simply, clearly, and economically as possible. Locke'sSecond Treatiseis actually quite simple to read, because he moves directly from point to point, and is not given to hyperbole or repetition. Locke is not a rhetorician; rather than play with words or language to compel the reader, he states his ideas as strongly and clearly as possible. He notes in the Preface that "railing" responses to his work will not refute his ideas--only rational arguments will. This simplicity of Locke's writing gives his ideas a sense of compelling empirical clarity, which can often cause one to overlook flaws in his philosophy (which we will address later).

Chapters 3-4: Of the State of War and Of SlaverySummaryLocke starts off by defining war as a state of "enmity and destruction" brought about by one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's life. The law of self-preservation, integral to the law of nature, dictates that a person may kill another person in self-defense. This definition rests upon the presumption that any aggression by one person against another constitutes a challenge to that person's freedom.By this reasoning, one can justifiably kill a thief since an attack on one's property represents a threat to one's liberty.Locke then outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war, noting that the two are NOT the same. The state of nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to war. Want of a common judge or authority is the defining characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is adequate basis for the state of war.The difference between war in Society and war in Nature depends on when they conclude. In Society, war ends when the "actual force is over," because both parties can then resort to the common authorities for arbitration of past wrongs. In Nature, war does not end until the aggressive party offers peace andreparationsfor the damage done; until then, the innocent party has a right to try to destroy the aggressor. Locke notes that in the presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation of the laws of nature and justice. Locke ends the chapter by noting that one of the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid the state of war, for the presence of a supreme power limits the necessity for war and increases stability and security.Locke starts Chapter 4 by definingnatural libertyas a person's right to be ruled solely by the laws of nature, andsocial libertyas the right to be under no legislative power other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the commonwealth's benefit.Locke bases his ideas about slavery on the idea that freedom from arbitrary, absolute power is so fundamental that, even if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is therefore impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only possiblestate of slaveryis the extension of the state of war, between a lawful conqueror and a captive, when the captive has been forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the Jews did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for their masters did not have full power over their lives, and therefore, did not have full control over their liberty.CommentaryWe should note that Locke's use of the term "war" really means "conflict," since he addresses clashes betweenindividualsrather thannations.In the state of nature, the absence of authority requires individuals to protect themselves. In society, victims can appeal to a common authority for the resolution of disputes, when possible (there are times that this is impossible, as in Locke's justification for killing the thief). Locke's definition of what constitutes, justifies, and ends a state of war continues his explication of the natural foundation of government. We can see more and more how fundamentally all of Locke's ideas rest on the right to personal liberty, and in the next section we will see that he directly equates that liberty with property, making property theTreatise's most important subject.If we recall the context in which Locke was writing--the justification of King William's ascension to the throne and the Whig Revolution--another point that he makes in this section is clear. In the closing portion of Chapter 3, Locke notes that war results in the presence of corrupt of inept authority. Because of natural rights, people have the right to fight against a government that fails to represent their best interests. Sir Robert Filmer, whom Locke was specifically addressing, and Thomas Hobbes both make directlyoppositeclaims. Filmer says that, because of the divine authority of kings, the people have no right to rebel against their sovereign. Hobbes says that, because people are so base and destructive, government must keep them in line by exerting absolute control. Locke argues that people have the right to respond to offensive incursions by unjust leadership as they would to offensive incursions by other people in the state of nature.In Chapter 4, Locke defines social liberty as the agreement to live in a commonwealth under a central authority given a trust to act in the best interests of the commonwealth. Once again, we must examine word choice to better understand Locke's assumptions: the commonwealth is established "by consent," the legislative power can only act "according to the trust put in it."After reading these first four chapters, we can start to understand Locke's ideas about human nature (as opposed to the state of nature). He appears to understand that people come into conflict with each other, steal from each other, are aggressive to each other, and so on. But he assumes also that people are rational enough to know their best interest. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe that people must have power over themselves wrested from them in order to create functional societies. On the contrary, Locke sees personal liberty as the key component of a society that works toward the individual's and the commonwealth's best interest.

Chapter 5: Of PropertySummaryLocke starts by stating that, whether by natural reason or the word of the Bible, the earth can be considered the property of people in common to use for their survival and benefit. He then posits a key question: if the earth and everything on it is the common property of humankind, how does one come uponindividualproperty?For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person--each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. He uses the simple example of picking an apple--the apple becomes minewhen I pick it,because I have added my labor to it and made it my property. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general--each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.Locke then places a bound on this type of acquisition--a person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage. To continue the apple example, I can only take as many apples as I can eat before they go bad; if I take too many apples and some of them rot and go to waste, I have overextended my natural rights of acquisition. One can only take so much as one can use. Locke applies these rules to land: a person in a state of nature can claim land by adding labor to it--building house on it or farming on it--but only so much as that person can reasonably use without waste. Locke then defines labor as the determining factor of value, the tool by which humans make their world a more advantageous and rewarding place to inhabit.Locke finishes the chapter by tracing the genesis of money. He notes that all useful goods--food, clothing, and so on--are generally of short life span. However, if one collects too many apples, one can then trade them for nuts with someone who has too many of those, and thus barter develops. Money fulfills the need for an imperishable valuation of worth, rooted in the property of labor.CommentaryLocke's premise in this section is quite simple: people have the right to appropriate goods by adding their labor to that good, thus making it their own. This right goes for all sorts of things, including land itself. This right is bounded by what one might call the law of subsistence--people do not have the right to take more than they can use. Money, backed by labor and the natural rights of people, becomes the basis for expansion beyond the subsistence level of property.Once trade is established, it is logical for people to want some good of common value to trade forallgoods--this need leads to money. The limitations that Locke places on property in the state of nature without money are as follows: one must put one's labor into something to claim it; one cannot take more than one can use (rule of subsistence); and money subsumes both.We have already seen how money transcends the rule of subsistence. It also transcends labor. For example, if I own a massive amount of land, and I pay people money to work the land, all the fruit on that land is still mine. I have mixed my labor with it, or rather, my labor translated into my property--I can then sell the fruit from that land for a profit, and I can own as I need, since I waste none of it. I then can sell all of my goods, my property, for money. Since everyone has agreed to the use of money, and everyone can benefit from trading with me, I violate no natural agreements by following this example. This process occurs in the state of nature, prior to any social agreement. In the next section, we will see that people enter into society to protect these unlimited rights of property, and any society or leadership that fails to protect these individual property rights becomes subject to overthrow.Locke repeats himself often in this section. He also refers to God frequently, which is somewhat uncommon for him. His arguments are similar, based in natural logic, and a very sensible progression of arguments, but he clothes them here in scripture.A note about Locke and America. First of all, when he talks about America, he appears to mean South America as much as North--Locke was writing only shortly after the period of Spanish world domination by its wealth of gold from the New World. Secondly, Locke's America is the ideal model of a world ripe with God's gifts but lacking human resources. He compares it unfavorably to England, noting that, despite all its natural gifts, it is less pleasant since less labor has been put into its development. Locke's historical context is illuminated in these sections, and becomes ironic in hindsight--he refers disparagingly to the same country that would go on to use his arguments to fight and win independence from England.

Chapters 6-7: Of Paternal Power and of Political or Civil SocietySummaryAll people are born with an equal right to freedom. Why are they then under their parents power? Because they are born without reason, the tool that people use to survive in both the state of nature and society. Parental power extends until the child is grown old enough (Locke uses twenty-one as an example age) to function independently within society. Likewise, the commonwealth at this age attributes the responsibilities and duties of an adult to a person who reaches this age of readiness. Thus, reason leads to personal freedom.Locke's problem here is the equation of monarchical power with paternal power. He starts out by noting that if the phrase were changed to "parental power"--to include the mother in the situation--people would not make the mistake of associating parental power with political power. Locke then notes that political power and paternal power are totally different. People are free of paternal power when they are old enough to function as individuals; but political power is built on wholly different foundations.Chapter 7 begins with Locke's description of the first society,conjugal society between a man and a woman. Locke then describes conjugal society as separate from political society; in it the master and mistress of the household have power over everyone in that household, although that power is neither absolute (they lack the power of life and death) or political.Locke reiterates his description of civil society as a united body of individuals under the power of an executive that protects their property and well being, and designs legislation to govern their behavior. Thus the commonwealth combines the legislative power to make laws and theexecutivepower to enforce laws, with the public's support. The difference between this and the paternalistic society, in which people are born into filial obligations that then extend throughout their adulthood, is significant.Locke ends the chapter with a description of all the ways in which absolute monarchy violates these principles. Absolute monarchy places no common authority over all; thus, by investing the authority in one person, the entire system suffers. Since the monarch can impinge on people's property and welfare without fear of retribution, the people lack the comfort, protection, and incentive to contribute to the good of the commonwealth. To prevent such an imbalance of power, the legislature and executive must be placed in a collective body. Thus, no individual is exempted from or above the laws of the commonwealth.CommentaryThese two chapters define civil society by describing what it isnot--paternal or conjugal society. Why should Locke spend so much time establishing this distinction? In Locke's time, it was very common for political philosophers such as Sir Robert Filmer to compare kings to fathers of their subjects to justify their absolute power. Locke was also aware of the traditional historical notions (Locke uses the Latin termpaterfamilias) of the family social unit centered on the father as both the paternal and political center of powerLocke presents paternal power, based on the assumption that young people have not yet fully developed their reason, to underline his belief that grown reasoning adults should become their own masters. Political power cannot be paternal because it either assumes that people do not have reason, or recognizes their reason and thus becomes powerless.A similar description applies to the conjugal power situations Locke describes. They cannot serve as models for civil society because they are based on one of two relationships--master/slave or parent/child. Both are poor models for civil society: Locke has defined slavery as an extension of the state of war, and the parental model we have already discredited as invalid.Locke's discussion of absolute monarchy logically extends from this discussion and becomes quite significant. First, it is significant because he presents to us for the first time a more detailed model for the correct way to go about establishing a civil society. Remember Locke's context here: Locke affiliated with the Whigs, a group of aristocrats with a mix of idealistic and practical concerns. He challenged the idea of an absolute monarchy on the basis that leaving the absolute monarch free to take the property or life of any member of society without redress violated natural rights.

Chapters 8-9: Of the Beginning of Political Societies, and Of the Ends of Political Society and GovernmentSummaryLocke starts off by arguing that the governing factor in civil society must be the majority, for practical reasons. By entering into civil society, the individual submits him or herself to the majority, and agrees to abide by the rules and decisions of the majority.Locke then addresses two hypothetical arguments against this model. First he discusses the lack of historical precedence for government by majority rule. Locke concedes that there are many examples in the modern world and throughout history of absolute power--czars, kings, sheiks, and so on. However, he notes that societies often forget their origins, and that in fact "the beginning of politic society depends upon the consent of individuals, to join into, and make one society." He then cites historical examples supporting this idea. He concludes once again with his paternal model, putting great credibility in its historical accuracy--people coming together, and willingly submitting themselves to a central male figure's control, either within their own family or a group of families. However, even in this situation, the establishment of government is by consent, as it must be to ensure the peaceful formation of all civil societies (he notes that he will address conquest, which is clearly not consensual, in a later portion).Since people are all born undersomegovernment, they are not in fact free and at liberty to unite together to change that government. Locke's response is that, although someone may bind himself to a given government, he cannot bind his children--they are born free and must make the decision about whether to ally themselves with their parents' government. Once again, "consent makes any one a member of any commonwealth." In Chapter 9, Locke reiterates why people would give up their natural freedom to enter into society--namely, to assure the protection of their lives, liberties, and estates, all of which Locke considersproperty.Nature lacks three very important things, all of which a just civil society provides: "an established, settled, known law"; "a known and indifferent judge"; and the "power to back and support the sentence" In order to gain the three things above, people must relinquish their natural rights. These include the right to do as they wish within the bounds of the law of nature; the power to punish the crimes committed against natural law. The first right ispartiallygiven up by submitting oneself to the laws of civil society, which are stricter than those of nature. The second right is given uptotallyin favor of putting oneself under the protection of the executive power of the society. Locke finishes by noting that this system is contingent on the three characteristics of civil society mentioned above--a law, a judge, and an executive working "to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people."CommentaryThis section represents the end of the first portion of theSecond Treatise of Government.By this point, Locke has defined the state of nature, outlined the formation and goals of a just civil society (the word "ends" in the title of Chapter 9 should be read as "goals"), and the principles behind that society.To review, briefly: in the state of nature, people are completely free and independent. Everyone is subject to natural law, however, and may execute that law when someone threatens his or her natural rights. People amass property in the state of nature, first by adding their labor to the land and the products of the land, then by bartering, and eventually developing money and acquiring the ability to gather large amounts of property together. At this point, natural law is no longer an adequate protection for the property and liberty of individuals, so people enter into civil society to protect themselves. By entering into society, people relinquish their freedom under natural law, and their right to execute law. Instead, in this society, 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. This commonwealth is valid and just so long as these three common powers serve to the best advantage of all of those who have relinquished their rights to join it.Locke does a very good job of supporting many of his ideas with references to either divine law or higher moral imperatives, and to some extent these are important elements of his argument, but we must always remember that property predominates. We find Locke's elevation of property in Chapter 9, in which Locke explicitly notes that the desire to protect property moves people to enter society. Government forms once people begin amassing large amounts of property, since those with property need a higher central authority to protect it.This raises another issue: what happens to those without property? So far, the state of nature favors those with money, people who enter into society to protect themselves from those who would steal from them. Why would those without property enter into this bargain? Why give up their freedom to protect what they lack?The answer might seem disappointing. Locke in fact never intended or expected that those without property would be in charge of civil society. In order for the system to be advantageous to those with property, those without property must be excluded from its privileges although still protected by and subject to its laws.We should remember that Locke's ideas were in fact progressive for his time. His assumptions about natural rights, and freedom from arbitrary and unjust government helped shape the creation of the United States Constitution, which rested on Lockean principles of equality and a government working to the best advantage of the people (although, while not mentioned, Locke's ideas about the advantages of the ruling class were built into that model as well).

Chapters 10-11: Of the Forms of a Commonwealth, and Of the extent of the Legislative PowerSummaryThe majority, upon entering into a commonwealth, get to choose their form of government. They may choose ademocracy,in which case they retain the legislative powers for themselves, anoligarchy,in which they submit that legislative power to a few select persons, or amonarchy,in which they give power to a single person. The monarchy may behereditary,if it passes from the ruler to his son, orelected,if a new ruler is elected by the majority's decision whenever the old ruler dies. The majority always has the power to change types of government. The placement of legislative power defines the type of government since legislative power is the supreme power within a civil state.Locke then notes that by "commonwealth" he does not particularly mean democracy; rather he uses the term to underscore the point that the community, regardless of its form of government, exists for the commonwealth, for the good of all.Chapter 11 is devoted to a study of the legislative power, which Locke has identified as the most important part of the government. The first rule of the legislative power is the preservation of the society. No one may challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own; all such power is invested in this body by the majority (the majority can, of course, challenge the legislative in some instances). Every member of society must adhere to the laws laid down by the legislative body. The limits to the power of the legislature include the following: the legislation must govern by fixed "promulgated established laws" that apply equally to everyone; these laws must be designed solely for the good of the people; and the legislative must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the people's consent.Here, Locke brings up what will be a constant concern: long-term office holders. This rule becomes particularly important when the legislature's members hold their positions for long periods of time, or even life; in these instances, they may think of themselves as a bodyseparatefrom society, and start working for their own best interests rather than for society's. The legislation does not have the power to transfer its power--it cannot give the right to make laws to anyone else-since the people's majority have placed this power with the legislative, and the majority's will, being the only force more powerful than the legislature, cannot be contradicted.CommentaryLocke has laid down the groundwork for a civil society, and now he describes the best structure for that civil society. He starts with the legislature because, in Locke's model, the legislature is the supreme power in the government: it issues the laws that the executive must enforce, and that the judicial branch must use as a measure of justice.Although today we may associate the ideals Locke espouses with democratic government, he was not solely focused on democracy, by any means. In his list of types of government, he does not favor any one above the others (although we know of his cautions about absolute monarchies)--as long as they adhere to his rules, they remain equally valid in his view.Locke's concern for a legislature that serves for too long a time is a good example of his practicality. We have discussed Locke's faith in human rationality, but now we should note that this faith is tempered by a caution about people's natural appetites. If a legislative is put in the position where it can legislate for its own benefit, Locke believes that it may well succumb to that temptation.Locke continues to focus on property in this section. He notes that although an officer may have the power of life and death over soldiers in his group (to protect the common good), he has no power over that soldier's property--the soldier's property is, in some ways, more sanctified than the soldier's life. We have seen this argument appear before, and we will see again several more times before we reach the end of theTreatise.

Chapters 12-13: Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth, and Of the Subordination of the Powers of the CommonwealthSummaryLocke notes that, despite its importance, there is no need for the legislature to always be in session. It is not necessary to have a constant flow of new laws, and, in fact, a perpetually active legislature carries risks of abuse, as discussed in the last section. So the legislature, as a body or an individual, only needs to be "active" or "in session" at certain times, and is not perpetual.The executive, on the other hand, must always be active, because the laws that the legislature passes must always be enforced. For this practical reason, as well as theoretical reasons discussed later, the executive and legislative powers should be separated.Locke then moves on to discuss the international character of his civil state. All of the individuals forming the civil state and their government come together to form a single body, and this body isin a state of nature with respect to other states; in other words, international relations are governed by natural law. Locke names this the federative power, the natural power in charge of the state's international relations, and notes that it is often conjoined with the executive power, which manages the societywithin.Chapter 13 begins with a reminder that, despite the high powers of the legislature, the people are still supreme over all, and have the power to "remove or alter the legislation" as they deem best. Thecommunityis always the true supreme power.Within the government itself, however, the legislature always stands supreme. Locke notes that, even in a monarchy when the executive is vested in a single person who may also have some say in the legislature, this person only has supreme execution,not supreme control of the government.Locke notes that the executive's power over the legislature does not imply that it controls the legislature. First, if the executive impedes the meeting and acting of the legislative when it is required, this constitutes an act of war against the people, since they have a right to the protection and work of that body when the state requires it. This control of the executive over the legislative, then, is a necessary trust placed in the executive: the legislative cannot meet constantly and the executive presides in its absence.Lastly, Locke notes that a city or region may experience a major change in its population and importance, necessitating an alteration of its number of representatives accordingly. It is the executive's prerogative oversees any alteration, as long as it complies with fair and equal representation within the legislative, and rectifies disorder that may spring up in the legislative body over time.CommentaryHere Locke introduces the notion ofseparation of powers.His arguments in Chapter 12 are pragmatic, but we shall soon see him turn to a theoretical discussion of why it might be necessary to divide the executive and legislative. Locke is wary of investing any single governmental body with too much power; a dual legislative / executive would make Locke very concerned, since it would presents a situation in which the governors may have different interests than the governed, which leads to dissolution in Locke's model.Next, Locke discusses the international character of his civil state. Locke's idea that the state in a "state of nature" would remain governed by natural law across boundaries is perhaps the most outdated of all of his political theories. Much of modern international relations is founded on the idea that one cannot apply the rules of domestic policy to international policy. Some modern authors who maintain that an international code of morality must be maintained in relations between states (this is sometimes called a "cosmopolitan" view) but this view is generally outmoded.We should also address some of the assumptions Locke has made about the legislative body. The notion of monarchy in which the legislative is wholly invested in the monarch seems anathema to Locke. Secondly, if we recall our discussion in Chapter 9 of Locke's ideal, propertied legislative, we can spot a very revealing phrase towards the end of Chapter 13. Locke explicitly notes that any area or region must be represented "in proportion to the assistance which it affords to the public." Locke's organizing factor for representation is property, as an area's representation is determined by the taxes it pays.Locke's introduction of executive prerogative at the end of this section introduces an important new component of his civil society model. Although Locke devotes the entire next chapter to this concept, we should keep clear his definition of prerogative as "nothing but a power, in the hands of the prince, to provide for the public good, in such cases, which depending upon unforeseen and uncertain occurrences, certain and unalterable laws could not safely direct." The trust placed by the people in the executive, just like the executive's power to call the legislature into session, stays within the boundaries Locke has set for his civil government.

Chapters 14-15: Of Prerogative and Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power (treated together)SummaryLocke starts off by recognizing that, in any civil society, situations will arise that have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to provide laws for them. In these instances, the executive may exerciseexecutive prerogative,or simply "good judgment." The executive is qualified to take actions that are outside the framework of the laws (not breaking them, just not provided for by them), if their actions advance the society's best interest. He defines this prerogative as "nothing but the power of doing public good without rule."In the paternal societies discussed earlier, law wasde facto,and rule was based on executive prerogative. Locke quickly corrects a possible misunderstanding that could arise from this description: even though all laws stemmed from executive prerogative, we cannot then say that the people, or the legislative, encroaches executive prerogative by passing laws to which the executive must be beholden. Encroachments can only be made on the public good, not on executive privilege or rights--the executive only has power inasmuch as the people invest in it. Prerogative, rather, is a trust placed by the people in the executive, which the executive is free to use so long as it uses it fairly.A good leader will be tacitly allowed a large amount of prerogative by his people if his judgments tend to benefit everyone. Thus, Locke notes that "the reigns of good princes have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people." The danger lies in the threat of a successor who, upon seeing the freedom his predecessor was allowed, will claim the same freedoms and rights based on precedent, and abuse power. In these cases, it can be difficult for the people to wrest the power back from the new offending leader, for he has taken as aright what is in fact atrust.So, who judges when a leader has overstepped his prerogative? When the people come into conflict with some part of their government, no judge presides. Instead, the people can and must invoke "that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind . . . whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven" and act against the executive in these cases.Chapter 15 is a condensation of Locke's previous discussion of the differences between paternal, political, and despotical power. Paternal power is power that parents have over their children until they reach the age of reason (this power does not cover their property). Political power is the power that each individual in a society consents to submit to the commonwealth for the protection of their property. And despotical power is absolute, arbitrary power of one person to take the life and property of another against their will. Thus, nature gives parents paternal power, consent yields political power to the commonwealth, and forfeiture (unwillingly) gives a tyrant despotical power over his subjects.CommentaryThe initial compromise of legislative power--that the executive may act without the explicit legal consent of the legislative--is deftly justified by Locke's explanation that the executive acts on behalf of the common good. Thus executive prerogative upholds the most fundamental tenet of the state--its preservation of the state. Furthermore, executive prerogative demonstrates the trust that must exist between the people and the executive (we saw mention of this in the executive's right to convene, adjourn, and alter the legislative, in Chapter 13). Locke makes it very clear, by contrasting the civil society with the paternal state, that the executive prerogative is not a right, but a duty of the executive, and that the people always retain the power to replace the executive.We should stop here and consider Locke's historical context for a moment. Locke was writing in a time in which rulers often claimeddivine rightover their subjects; in other words, they justified their absolute power by ascribing it to the word of God, or by actually claiming to be descended from God. Locke'sTreatiseestablishes a new framework for executive power, in which kings and leaders become accountable for their actions, which must meet with public approval.What then are to we to make of Locke's appeal to "heaven" for judgment on the question of executive prerogative at the end of Chapter 14? When Locke speaks here of the "law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men," he refers to the law of nature. If the ruler is abusing executive prerogative, then the people are in a worse position under that leadership than they would be in the state of nature. In this case, they must consult their own rational understanding of natural law--their natural rights and privileges--and see if these rights have been violated. If so, the people must rebel against that leader. Locke almost always returns to the situation in which the people have the right to rebel. Remember that his immediate aim is to defend the Whig Rebellion, to describe the circumstances surrounding the overthrow of King James II and the replacement of William and Mary.Chapter 15 is simply a rephrasing of material covered before, enhanced by Locke's bolstered explanations of consensual political power, and how it differs from the natural, limited power granted parents over their children, and from the unnatural, unlimited power seized by despots over the life and property of others (See Chapters 3 (Of the State of War), 6 (Of Paternal Power), and 7 (Of Political or Civil Society) for a fuller discussion of all of these conditions).

Chapter 16-17: Of Conquest, and Of UsurpationSummaryLocke starts off by stating that an unjust conqueror never has therightto rule the conquered. Unjust conquest is always unjust in Locke's model, whether by petty thief or a despot. Locke then moves on to make provisions for the cases in which there is a lawful conquest (which he does not yet define). In lawful conquest, "The conqueror gets no power by his conquest over those that conquered with him." In other words, those that help the conqueror conquer cannot suffer from having given their aid; rather, they should benefit from it.The conqueror gets despotical power over those who relinquished their rights and lives by waging unjust war. Locke notes the important limitations to this power carefully. The conqueror only gets power over the government that waged the war, not the entire populace, unless the populace explicitly sanctioned its government's unjust war. It would be unnatural for the conqueror to acquire despotic rights over a people who have done nothing to deserve the loss of their freedom. Locke goes on to note that the unjust use of force, in any context, puts one person into a state of war with another.Locke then continues his explanation of the limits of the lawful conqueror's power. Recalling the prior argument that a father cannot forfeit any of his children's rights, and remembering that an aggressor's children have a prior right to the aggressor's estate, a conqueror cannot seize the property of an aggressor. The just conqueror's right extends only to thelivesof the aggressors, not to their estates, since others have a prior claim and right to the latter.Locke points out that this may necessitate certain instances in which a conqueror must "remit something of his full satisfaction." Despotic power, the power of a just conqueror over an unjust aggressor, would indeed include seizure of that aggressor's property, if no one else's rights were bound to that estate. But since the rights and survival of the aggressor's family may depend on the estate, the just conqueror must forego his lesser right to the property in the face of the family's prior, stronger claim. The just conqueror, by ignoring these claims, can become an unjust aggressor.Chapter 17 gives quick attention to usurpation, which Locke describes as domestic conquest. Usurpation is simply a change of leadership, not of the forms of rules and government, and is not right unless sanctioned by the people. A usurper has no just right to the power he has taken until the people freely confirm him as a leader.CommentaryThis is the only point in theTreatisein which Locke deals with just action that could be considered in any way aggressive. It is very telling, then, that this just action quickly becomes unjust if it extends beyond the limits Locke allows for righteous conquest. Locke's ideas of righteous conquest are what one might expect--retribution rooted in the law of nature, and a protector of the victim's property, privileged over his life ,on the basis of his family's natural rights to that property. Locke simply and elegantly extends his principles and ideas to the question of a successful war.Locke never makes any provision or allowance for aggressive behavior; all aggressive behavior is performed by anunjustparty against aninnocentparty, and thus justifies the destruction of the aggressor. Thus aggressive action can only result in the violation of natural or civil rights, and the surrender of those rights on the part of the aggressor. In fact, to jump ahead, in Chapter 18, Locke notes explicitly that "force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force." Locke's just member of society never stoops to force or aggression, unless he himself is first victimized or attacked.Although Locke would never advocate the dishonest or forceful acquisition of another's property, his model of property gathering (once money has been established) allows for fairly aggressive behavior--it frees individuals to gather property without any limitations. And while this does not represent direct aggression against others, Locke does not even address the potential for aggression or competition. This discrepancy exists throughout theSecond Treatise--Locke's standards for natural and moral behavior remain high, except where property is concerned. We cannot know if Locke was aware of this lapse in his model, whether it was a deliberate method of privileging property above all else.Chapters 18-19: Of Tyranny, and Of the Dissolution of GovernmentSummaryLocke defines tyranny as "the exercise of power beyond right." A just leader is bound by the laws of the legislative and works for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the laws and acts on his own behalf. Locke notes that any executive body--not just a m onarchy--that ceases to function for the benefit of the people is a tyranny. He then points out factors that limit the people from hastily opposing the government. These include: sanctity of the executive; faith that laws will prevent necessity of force; and the fear that a small group of individuals will never overthrow powerful leaders with success.In Chapter 19, Locke finally arrives at the question of forming a new government. When the state ceases to function for the people, it is dissolved, and may be replaced. This occurs when the legislative is changed or usurped by a tyrannical executive power, when the legislative or executive breaches its trust, or when the executive ignores its own duties and renders the law meaningless, reducing society to chaos.When the government is dissolved, the people are free to reform the legislative in order to re-create a civil state that works in their best interestbeforethey fall under tyrannical rule. Why does this doctrine not lead to excessive unrest and frequent rebellion? For several reasons: people are slow to change their old habits and customs; if the people are miserable, they will rebel underanysystem; and finally, revolutions occur only in the event of the leadership's flagrant abuse of power or breach of trust. This system, Locke argues, protects against rebellion because it allows the people to change their legislative and laws, rather than resorting to force to overthrow them. Locke also notes that all concerns about revolution are foolish, because they represent a fear of a righteous process: it is rightful and dignified for people to rebel against unjust oppression.Locke then calls upon William Barclay, a protector of the rights of kings, to describe situations in which people may overthrow the kings. Locke uses Barclay to prove that even a great defender of royal privilege concedes that a king may abdicate himself by abusing the power of his position, and at that point the people have the right to overthrow him.Who judges when the leader has abused his power to such an extent that he may be overthrown? The people, Locke says. The people are the best judge of whether their protector is protecting them. Locke ends by noting that, as long as society lasts, the power that each individual gives it cannot revert back to the individual, and, so long as any government lasts, the power that the society gives the legislative cannot revert back to the society. Either of these institutions may be destroyed by the revers ion of the powers vested in them, people always being free to "erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good."CommentaryLocke completes his picture of a just civil society by returning to his original impetus for writing theSecond Treatise--the dissolution of government in the face of tyranny. Locke has lain his groundwork so soundly that his argument for the dissolution of government requires no new ideas, only a synthesis of everything covered so far. Civil society exists to protect the property and liberty of its members--if something break s down anywhere in its government and it no longer fulfills this function, something has gone awry and the people have a right to rid themselves of that government. Where does this right come from? It comes from the natural rights described by Locke starting as far back as Chapter 2. If the government in power is not working for them, it is not a just government, and people would be better off in a state of nature.Locke's tone in the last chapter becomes stronger and more insistent than before. One gets the feeling that the sturdiness of his ideas has solidified his confidence and his writing style. His glib breaking down of Barclay's outmoded notions is surprisingly humorous.Up until this point, Locke has always relied on natural law, often cloaked as the "rule of heaven," to arbitrate civil situations. Now, in this final chapter, when posing the question of who is to judge when the executive or legislative acts contrary to the trust of the people, Locke answers directly thatthe peoplemust judge. He had placed the power of the decision in the people previously in the text, but now he does so directly without the shroud of divine or heavenly influence.We should note that Locke's text is far from a call to arms, however. Locke is anxious to prove that he is not providing a system by which government will easily or spuriously be overthrown--in both Chapters 18 and 19, he devotes considerable energy to showing that, under his model, the rights of people in society are protected, butnot in favor of less stability.Locke hoped that the "Glorious Revolution" of William and Mary would usher in a new era of government in England and Europe, however, the precedent of absolute monarchy stood strong. Locke understood that his ideas posed a threat to the power and rule that held society together; this might help to explain why he devotes so much of his work to explaining the stability and elegance of hi s system, under which people could live more freely and in accordance with their natural rights.

Questions for StudyDoes Locke's concern with protection of property as one of the central purposes of civil society contradict his work in defense of universal human rights?What appear to be the assumptions about human nature on which Locke bases his depiction of the state of nature? Be sure to use examples from the text to support your arguments.Using theSecond Treatiseand theUS Constitution,describe some ideas that the Constitution seems to borrow from Locke; discuss ideas that deviate from his philosophy as well.Discuss the implications and problems of applying Locke's ideas to international relations. This may require some research on modern political theory.Libertarians often cite John Locke as a great inspiration behind their ideology. Do you agree or disagree with this claim? Again, you might want to inform your answer with additional reading and research, perhaps including the works of Ayn Rand).Based on passages from theSecond Treatise,how do you feel John Locke uses the Bible to support his arguments? What seems to be John Locke's own relationship to scripture as a basis for political arguments?John Locke is perhaps most famous for his theory of thetabula rasa,(the infant's "blank slate" state, free from good or evil). How is this idea important to hisSecond Treatise?Discuss the risks associated with Locke's allowance of executive privilege. Do you feel his theories adequately defend against these risks?Discuss the difference between paternal society and political society, as Locke sees it, and explain how paternal society can in fact turn into a form of political society.Who does Locke's theory of money's origin benefit the most? By retracing the theory from its origin in natural rights, describe the assumptions behind each step, and the result of the theory that results.