Introduction
John Locke is one of the critical figures of philosophy of the late 17th – early 18th centuries. Moreover, he can rightly be called the founder of British empiricism, the creator of the theories of natural law and the social contract, and the doctrine of the distribution of powers, which are the cornerstones of modern liberalism. Locke stood at the origins of the labor theory of value, which he used for the apologetics of bourgeois society and proof of the inviolability of private property rights. The Two Treatises of Government formulated two fundamental liberal principles: economic will, the right to own and use property, and intellectual will, which includes freedom of conscience.
Analysis of Locke’s Ideas in The Two Treatises of Government
Incompatibility of Locke’s Political Theory with His Time and the Need for Revolution
The basis of Locke’s theory is the idea of natural rights, like the right to life, personal will, and private property, which was the forerunner of modern human rights. When citizens enter society, they enter into a social contract whereby they give up their authority in favor of the government to protect their natural rights. In his views, Locke defended the interests of the English bourgeoisie; in particular, he did not extend the will of conscience to Catholics but human rights to peasants and servants. Therefore. Locke’s ideas formed the basis of the ideology of the American and French revolutions.
Locke’s political concepts were a complete manifestation of the ideology of the early bourgeois revolutions, which formed the basis of classical liberalism as one of the main currents of social and political thought. He accepted and enriched the ideas of natural law, social contract, national sovereignty, and inalienable individual freedoms. Collecting and summarizing these basic human needs, Locke created a separate political doctrine known as classical liberalism. However, even though the Revolution of 1688 marked some compromise between the social classes, Harris (2019) notes that Locke’s ideas were well ahead of their time. The concept presented by the philosopher could not be implemented either in the 17th or 18th century, as his ideas were incomprehensible to those who had to implement them.
The State of Nature and Property
Locke begins his philosophical reflections on the political organization of society by describing what happened before the emergence of the state. According to the philosopher, society was in a natural state where there was no war of all against all (Locke, 1690). The concept of such a society is easy to imagine if we assume that people do not clash with interests and each possesses the private property necessary for him. This property was not the same in size, and it was equal for everyone, but each owner had an equal opportunity in principle to increase it to the extent of their skill and zeal (Pye, 2018). Arguing in this way, Locke followed the typical bourgeois view, which was that every owner should increase his property as much as he could.
Contradictions in Locke’s Ideas
Common Property in Natural State
Locke’s ideas about the state of nature are fascinating for analysis since they show apparent contradictions. First, Locke states that people owned everything in common in their natural state. According to Locke, the only things that belong to the individual are his life and intellectual activity. However, shortly after these statements, Locke also elaborates that, having put enough effort into something, a person “joins to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (Locke, 1690). Consequently, labor gives the individual the right to own the product he has created, and as a result, the common property eventually becomes private.
As Corcoran (2019) notes, such statements by the philosopher were often regarded as Locke’s “ulterior motive of imperial expansion” (p. 227). With the transition to a politically ordered society, the right of ownership is established as a right of private property. At the same time, the principle of property inheritance is recognized. This principle does not correspond to the thesis that private property results from the individual’s labor.
Rights for Property
Secondly, Locke declares that everyone has the right to own as much property as he can use. Nevertheless, the individual does not have the right to neglect what he owns due to his labor. Since Locke proceeds from the idea of a subsistence economy, he believes that the right of ownership for an individual has natural limitations. The crop grown by an individual and personally consumed by him is his private property, but at the same time, a person is obliged to use this crop for his benefit and without transferring resources. Finally, Locke suggests that there are enough resources to meet the basic needs of all people; in particular, he notes that there is enough land for everyone.
Moreover, the cultivation of land and things significantly increases the value of the things we use. According to Locke, land is the primary resource needed by man; furthermore, “there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants” (Locke, 1690). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that at the moment, such conclusions of the philosopher are irrelevant since the population of the Earth is multiplying. In addition, Locke did not consider the factor of depletion of land resources, which caused his theory to collapse.
Freedom, Government, and Social Organization
The natural state of man lies in the presence of freedom of action for everyone and universal equality. However, the natural organization of society described by Locke seemed imperfect to him, as it had no government and authority. Governing bodies for society are necessary for solving interpersonal conflicts and punishing the guilty in case of violating the laws of nature. According to Locke, people consciously transfer part of the control of their lives to the authorities, forming the government.
However, liberalism, as understood by Locke, is not only about freedom and equality but is also “the form of consent, in that subjects or citizens must freely give their consent to governmental authority if it is to be legitimate” (Rae, 2018, p.293). Thus, the natural state of a person is freedom, but at the same time, the conscious transfer of part of his freedom under the control of another person. Moreover, Guha-Majumdar (2021) highlights that Locke’s ideas about equality are confusing and controversial. Creations of the same species and levels, randomly born with the same natural inclinations and using the same abilities, must also be equal without subordination or subordination. However, at the same time, any person can become the leader of society if the majority grants such a right.
Money, Inequality, and Social Disruption
Speaking about property and equality, Locke notes that the invention of money violated the natural laws of society. Giving value to money was the first universal agreement, even before the rise of political society. This agreement, according to Locke, violated the natural laws of equality and property and resulted in “a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth” (Locke, 1690). Moreover, the introduction of the monetary system allowed people to accumulate this resource and, as a result, to show their superiority.
As a result, the natural law about what and how much an individual can own not to upset the balance in a natural society collapses. Furthermore, with the advent of money, material inequality arises when some have more and others have less. However, although Locke criticizes the financial agreement as one that started the destruction of natural society, he also claims that the monetary agreement arose due to individuals’ free exercise of will. Therefore, people without money or power should not complain about their condition.
According to Locke, the result of the following general agreement was the creation of a political society. Among the main reasons for this decision, the philosopher calls for a political organization that protects life and property. Everyone is interested in protecting his own life, and those with property have an additional interest in protecting it. Therefore, everyone is interested in such a social contract, albeit on different grounds.
Theological Foundations of Natural Law
In a natural society, no one can harm the health or life of another person since they do not belong to him. Locke’s concept of natural society is inextricably linked to theology, and he notes that all people are “servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order” (Locke, 1690). However, natural laws also operate alongside Divine laws, and in their natural state, each person must protect himself and his property. Consequently, natural society is primitive in its laws, where “whoso shedeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke, 1690). Under natural circumstances, a person can kill someone who harms him or his property.
On the other hand, in a political society, the right to revenge and restore justice is shifted to the authorities and the government. The law of nature, which prescribes peace and security, would be useless if no one had the power to guard this law by curbing its transgressors. Like any other, Locke argued, natural laws are provided with the punishment of those who break the law to the extent that it can prevent its violation. Locke considered the certainty of punishment one of the most important guarantees of law and legality.
In the state of nature, these guarantees are not sufficiently reliable, for the indiscriminate use by each of his powers to punish the transgressors of the law of nature either punishes excessively severely or leaves the violation unpunished. Given that Locke’s laws of nature are inextricably linked with God’s laws, it can be assumed that at some stage in the development of humanity, God’s punishment for committed crimes ceased to be a sufficiently weighty argument. For killing Abel, “Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden” (King James Version Bible, 1604, Genesis 4:16). While in a natural society, a person could commit another murder for damage caused to them or their property.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the political organization of society and the creation of the government was an attempt to visualize the concept of God’s punishment through a very tangible system of punishments. People renounced the right to provide these rights and laws independently to create guarantees of natural rights and laws. As a result of social agreement, the state became the guarantor of natural rights and freedoms. The government should have the right to issue laws with sanctions, use the forces of society to enforce these laws, and manage relations with other states.
Locke vs. Hobbes and the Democratic Vision
Legal theory is based on the view that the state should protect the “rights” of individuals. In other words, according to the principles of natural law, when a person is subjected to any insult that would justify revenge, a just law must operate in such a way that the state carries out revenge. In contrast to Locke, Hobbes (1651) argued that a monarchy could be the only possible form of power in the state. The government and its interests are at the center of Hobbes’s ideas, while in Locke’s concept, the individual and his rights remain the central element.
The ideas proposed by Locke focus on human rights and freedoms, and therefore, they can be considered very democratic. In Locke’s state, the individual independently decides to whom to transfer the responsibility for protecting his rights. However, in addition to protecting citizens, the government, according to Locke, must also establish social norms of behavior. Despite the likely crisis of religion in Locke’s time, moral standards are still critical elements of an individual’s acceptable social behavior. Since Locke believed that the rules of morality and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions are established by God, and if it is impossible, the government should perform this function.
Conclusion
Thus, the legal society represented by Locke in Two Treatises of Government is based on a general agreement, which is a free and independent decision of citizens. The need to reorganize society from the natural to the principal political comes from previously accepted monetary agreements. Locke concludes that by giving value to money, people violated the natural system of equality. Moreover, probably feeling a crisis of faith, society began to need a new system to establish general moral standards and punish those who violate them. These factors became the main prerequisite for the formation of the government as a guarantor of the further functioning of society without a war of all against all.
References
Corcoran, P. (2018). John Locke on Native Right, Colonial Possession, and the Concept of Vacuum domicilium. The European Legacy, 23(3), 225–250. Web.
Guha-Majumdar, J. (2021). Lyons and Tygers and Wolves, Oh My! Human Equality and the “Dominion Covenant” in Locke’s Two Treatises. Political Theory, 49(4), 637-661. Web.
Harris, J. A. (2019). The interpretation of Locke’s Two Treatises in Britain, 1778–1956. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 28(3), 483–500. Web.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan [eBook edition]. The Project Gutenberg.
King James Version Bible. (1604). KJV Online. Web.
Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government [eBook edition]. Global Grey.
Pye, T. (2018). Property, space and sacred history in John Locke’s two treatises of government. Modern Intellectual History, 15(2), 327-352. Web.
Rae, H. (2018). Liberalism and the anxiety of belief. Patterns of Prejudice, 52(4), 293–313. Web.