Second+Treatise

toc = = =**The Second Treatise Of Civil-Government**=

In //The Second Treatise//, Locke describes his theory of government and sets up what is probably the closest model we have seen of democracy rooted in liberalism which is so familiar today. He begins by describing a community that is built on equality and natural rights but is also influenced by natural law. He goes on to discuss the state of war, the rights to property and how and executive power is formed within this essentially equal society. Abuses of power do factor in and Locke advises as to when it is acceptable to rebel against government.

Chapter II: The State of Nature
Locke begins by explaining that in the state of nature all men are equal because all were created by God. As a result, no one man has power over another and all are free to do as they please. Hoever, this state of liberty is NOT "a state of license." Men do not have the right to abuse one another and should feel compelled when possible to preserve mankind. Natural law does exist in the state of nature and morality and justice are very present, making Locke's state of nature fundamentally different from that of Hobbes. Since men are expected to act with regard for their person, the stakes of any given interaction are considerably lower.

Locke does acknowledge that self-preservation is important and men do have the right to defend themselves against threats. Men have a distinct sense of reason that allows them to be able to determine a fitting punishment for a given crime that will deter the criminal from behaving in such a way again. Men are often compelled to leave the state of nature due to conflicts that arise but may not do so until a social contract of sorts (which is discussed later) allows them to become part of a society with a more developed political system.

Chapter III: The State of War
The state of war is one of “enmity and destruction”, in which one person declares war, either by word or action against another person. The other person has the right to eliminate the threat for two reasons: (1) because we have, above all, the right of self-preservation; and (2) the warring man is effectively exposing himself as a savage. If one man tries to put another man in his absolute will, they are in a state of war (no man has this right, unless formally consented to him). Locke, within the Second Treatise, contrasts this "state of war" to, what he refers to as the "state of nature." Within the state of nature, Locke stresses that each person is created and remains equal throughout his/her entire life. The State of War, however, is a result of one person violating this fact. In other words, he/she attempts to deprive the other of his/her right to life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness.

Locke also declares that killing a thief is lawful. He reasons that the thief is attempting to subdue another’s will by unjustly taking his possessions away from him. It is reasonable to suppose that the thief would take all else as well. In the State of Nature, men live in relative peace without a common superior force, and they judge among themselves. However, the State of Nature is not always peaceful. The lack of a common judge can often lead to strife or even full-fledged war. In the State of War, one infringes upon the rights of another by declaring absolute power over the other. Locke states that no man has this right to declare sovereignty over another. War materializes due to this discord and when there exists no common authority to which one can appeal. Thus, war comes about due to, "...he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power...thereby putting himself into a state of war... (Chapter 3)"

The state of war ceases with the presence of a common judge. To avoid the state of war, humans are advised to form a society in which controversy can be decided and appeals can be made.

Chapter IV: Theory of Slavery
Locke begins his Theory of Slavery in chapter 4, section 22 by explaining arbitrary control over man. According to Locke, the freedom of nature is the freedom to do what a person "...pleases, and not to be tied by any laws" (Chapter 4). The natural liberty of man is to be free from control of any superior power and any legislative power except those consented to within a commonwealth. Freedom from this absolute power is essential to a person's preservation. One does not have the power to enslave himself to another being. Locke says, however, that when a person commits such a heinous crime that death is the only penalty, the person whom he or she transgressed against may make use of him or her to his or her own service. For, "...he, to whome he has forfeited it [life], may delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service..."(Chapter 4). Additionally, if a conqueror seizes control of a captive during war, then limited power and obedience are initiated, and compact has been agreed to on both sides in which the power over one's life is forfeited to the conqueror. **(Given this, does Locke think slavery is justified in some circumstances, or not? 1162166210)**

Chapter V: Theory of Property
Locke begins his Theory of Property by first setting out the idea that all men have a "property in his own person." No person can lay a claim to another's body. Locke uses this assertion as a segway to his broader theory of property, that is, the labor and work of the body. Locke writes, "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (Section 27). Essentially, the labor a person puts in to a parcel of land or a harvest of crops entails that person's ownership. Locke uses the example of the Indian, who has killed a deer. The labor of killing and skinning the deer for nourishment designates that deer as the Indian's property.

Locke distinguishes between the moral use of property and excess use of property. He writes that, "As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labor fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others" (Section 31). In Section 32, Locke shares his views on his theory of earthly property. Locke mirrors his past assertions by again reiterating the idea that whatever labor one person puts in to a parcel of property (cultivation, tilling etc.) designates that parcel as his property. Locke writes in Section 32 that, "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property." He further indicates that each person, when they enclose land from the "common," must have the consent of the fellow-commoners.

Locke bases many of his assertions on property and proper land use on his interpretation of God's will. Locke writes, "The law man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. This was his property which could be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we see are joined together" (Section 35). The invention of money, as Locke contends, has skewed the past "enough land for every man" notion of property. The introduction of currency as Locke contends, "...introduced larger possessions [more land], and a right to them..." (Section 36).

This introduction of money throws a fork in Locke's previous assertions on responsible land use. For the first time in human history, Locke believes, property takes on a different value. Humans now possess durable goods in the form of money and, due to the value that people have placed on them, they are encouraged to have more perishable goods than they could otherwise use, in order to trade them for the afor mentioned money/durable goods. **It may appear as if Locke, in his chapter on property,** reneges on his pasts assertions that the State of Nature is equal. Locke writes that "...it is plain that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by tacit and voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use...(Section 50)". The world "fairly" appeases this seemingly contradictry notion of equality in the state of nature. Locke contends that the State of Nature may not be equal per se, but it is fair.

Chapter XIII: Of The Beginning of Political Societies
In this chapter, Locke explains that, given the rights present in nature, a person cannot be ruled by another without the consent of the subject as subjects still hold the liberties of the state of nature. Once people form this body or community of consent, according to Locke, they form a government that is ruled by the strongest force in the community, which is consent of the majority. If a member of the community refuses to consent to the will of the majority, then Locke says there is essentially no contract since no one would really be bound by the restrictions that end the state of nature. In this way, the will of the majority becomes, for all practical purposes, the will of the whole. If this were not true, the will of the whole would literally require the direct consent of everyone, a completely impractical claim, as the contract would never last more than a few days.(Sect 95-99)

Locke then cites two common objections to this claim. First, he says there is no history of "a company of men independent, and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government." Locke concedes that there are more examples of the rule of one over the rule of the majority, but says that somewhere down the line, the will of the majority had to have given power to a single ruler. Since most communities started small, these groups tended to put the power in a single person's hand. Even as political societies grew, they knew only of a single ruler government, thus making this type of rule more common. Regardless, it still resulted from the consent of the majority. (100-113)

The second objection is that it is impossible for men to form a government in this way "because all men being born under government, they are to submit to that and are not at liberty to begin a new one." Locke, however, says that being born under a specific government does not necessarily bind you to that government. Just because your father makes a contract with others, this does not automatically cause you to lose your liberty. Here, Locke says that a child is actually the subject of no country, but only a subject of their parents. Instead, a child must give their consent to the contract. This can be done in two ways. One is express consent, where a subject makes an obvious dedication to a power. This may happen when a person leaves their country to enter another, such as an immigrant to the US making a pledge of citizenship. Harder to determine is what Locke calls tacit consent. This occurs, according to Locke, when one has possessions. Here, a person is enjoying the benefits of that society's protection of his right to property, so tacitly consents to the community. However, since this tacit consent is less binding, a person is free to rid themselves of property to move to a different community and live under different laws. (113-122)

Chapter XIV: Of Prerogative
Locke uses this chapter to recognize that in any society governed by a legislature, there will be situations that will have to be dealt with that are either not covered by explicit law or too imminent in nature for the legislature to convene. In these situations, Locke affirms the executive power to exercise personal prerogative to deal with these situations. These powers are based on the assumption that the executive will act in order to preserve the well-being of society. (Section 159 to 161)

Locke then continues to discuss the role of prerogative in early societies. He draws comparisons to early paternal societies where law was based almost exclusively on the discretion of the ruler. In these societies, princes would on occasion make use of this power for their own gain. When this was the case, people would create express laws in order to place limitations on prerogative when it would damage the public good. Locke goes on to say that when legislature is passed that limits the executive; it is not a encroachment on prerogative. Locke distinguished that encroachments can be made on the public good, and therefore, the executive power is an entity whose power is dependent on the faith that the people invest in it. (Section 163-164)

Using this reasoning, Locke states that a good leader will be given a great deal of prerogative by his people. However, this can become a great danger when a successor is an inferior leader with a disproportionate amount of power. This new leader may accept his power as a right, rather than as a matter of trust between him and the people.

Locke concludes with the question as to who can be the judge of when a leader has overstepped his boundaries. Locke claims that there can be no judge on earth when the interests of the leader and the people come into conflict. Therefore the people must appeal to heaven, as God and nature have never allowed man to abandon himself or his preservation either by self-infliction or by allowing others to cause harm to himself. By using this determination, the people may act against the executive. (Section 168)

Study Questions
> >
 * Why does Locke think human beings are equal?
 * How does Locke's conception of equality differ from Hobbes?
 * Why would one exit this seemingly utopian State of Nature and enter in to a society
 * What does Locke's description of the state of nature tell us about legitimate states of society?
 * What is Locke's primary purpose of government?
 * How do humans go from common property to private property?
 * Can humans enslave themselves? If so, how? If not, why?
 * What role do religious beliefs play in Locke's definition of argument? How does this influence the work? How does this fit into the time period?