John Locke

 John Locke (1632-1704) is one of the most important political

philosophers, and the one that has arguably had the greatest impact on American politics–even though Locke was English. Locke's defense of limited government, his idea of natural rights, and government by consent were a huge influence on the founders of the American republic.

Locke lived during a tumultuous time in English history. Many people have heard of the French Revolution (1789-1799), less known but equally important was the English revolution against the monarchy in the previous century, and resulting civil war (1642-1651). Much like the French, the climax of this historical event led to a full scale rebellion against the English monarchy, and the execution of the English king Charles I.

Charles I being led to his execution, 1649

However, the monarchy was eventually restored, although by the end of the 17th century the power of the monarchy was significantly limited as the British Parliament became the supreme political institution in England, and the English territories referred to as the United Kingdom (UK). Locke's formative years were during the civil war, and lived long enough to see the power of the king replaced by parliament. Locke's political philosophy advocates for the power of parliamentary representative institutions over monarch, so his political philosophy closely tracks with ongoing developments in England during his life time. Besides this, as mentioned his philosophical ideas were a great influence on the American founders as well.

What is distinct about Locke's philosophy? Well, as already mentioned he argues against the power of absolute monarchies that have unlimited power over his subjects. Today, these ideas would seem like common sense but in his day, not only did monarchies exist throughout Europe, but there were many philosophical defenses written for absolute monarchy, most notably the work of Robert Filmer. Locke explicitly argues against the paternalistic idea of political authority, that a king acts in almost the same role as a parent or father does over their children and thus has unlimited power over the subjects (his children). Locke questions what is it that makes political authority legitimate. In other words, by what right do political leaders actually have power over the people, or to put it another way, why should people obey the government? Is it purely a relation of force, do people only obey out of fear, or do political authorities actually have a legitimate right to rule? Locke would argue that political authorities do have a legitimate right to rule, but this legitimacy is not absolute and this right does not reside in the king being a kind of parent figure or even worse a god-like figure over his subjects. The right to rule comes from consent, that authorities have the right to rule only to the extent to which people give them that right. If the people do not give or withdraw their consent then rulers lose the right to rule over the people. This was literally a revolutionary idea at the time Locke was writing, and had a significant impact as I have said on the American founders. One need look no further than the most celebrated passage from the Declaration of Independence to find the influence of Lockean ideas:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Signing of Declaration of Independence

As this passage shows, the right of any government to rule rests in consent of the people and to the extent the government protects the rights of people they have as a matter of natural right, not something given to them by the government. If the government does not do this, then people not only have a right, but an obligation to rebel against this government.

The influence Locke had does not stop there. The phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is influenced by Locke's belief that individuals have natural rights, rights that cannot be taken away by the government, or inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property. Locke's idea of natural rights comes out of a philosophical with another important political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, although the two never met. Hobbes had argued that before people lived in a political society they existed in a state of nature. However, in the state of nature there was no law, and anarchy and chaos existed everywhere. In order to establish order, people enter into a social contract and give their consent to a political authority with almost unlimited power to rule over them and create stability. Hobbes, who was writing before Locke, also argues that the basis of political authority rests in consent of the governed, but since the problems of maintaining order and stability are so great that political authority must be stronger and again have almost unlimited power (Hobbes is similar to Machiavelli in this regard). Hobbes would argue that people have no rights in the state of nature, and that even concepts like justice and injustice would not exist because basically anything goes in the state of nature. To give a sort of modern take on this idea, think of the movie The Purge (and its many sequels) this kind of illustrates what the Hobbesian state of nature would be like. Locke has a different view of the state of nature. Locke argues that people can live for the most part peacefully in a pre-political society and enjoy liberty and even respect each other's liberty. "The state of nature is governed by a law that creates obligations for everyone. And reason, which is that law, teaches anyone who takes the trouble to consult it, that because we are all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (p. 4). However, Locke argues that over time disputes over property would become so great that people enter into a social contract to create a political society, mostly to regulate disputes over property. "Eventually the people find that, although the whole purpose of government is the preservation of property, their property is not safe under this government; and they conclude that the only way for them to be safe and without anxiety—the only way for them to think they are in a civil society—is for the legislative power to be given to a collective body of men, call it ‘senate’, ‘parliament’, or what you will" (p. 31).

It is worth noting that the Lockean right of property becomes the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration. Why is this? Some would argue that the pursuit of happiness is a more democratic idea since most people did not own property, the pursuit of happiness is available to everyone, and again an important right that governments must protect.

The Lockean idea of property is a very important part of his philosophy and one he spends significant time talking about in his Second Treatise. Unlike the other natural rights which are so obvious, he believes, that they do not require any real argument to justify, he does try to justify a right to property. People have a right to property because they add or mix in their labor, their energy which they use on objects, creating or altering them to make them more useful. Since these objects only exist to the extent people labor on them then they have a right to use these objects as they see fit. In this regard, Locke is objecting to governments who would take property away from people in the form of taxation or other means. It does raise several other questions however. For one, in a more current context to what extent do heads of corporations have to the profits created by their workforces. For example, Jeff Bezos is now worth over $200 billion (his wealth increasing significantly during this pandemic), does he have a right to this wealth even though it is his employees that are creating this wealth through their work (even working in dangerous conditions during a pandemic). The Lockean argument would say yes he does, since his business empire was created through property he owns he can use any way he wants including hiring other workers. There are of course objections to this kind of argument, but one would have to turn to other political philosophers like Karl Marx. There is another aspect to Locke's defense of property which must be questioned as well, and was even more relevant during his day. The idea that ownership of property comes from laboring over the land and other objects of nature, but what if you have land but do not work on it, do you still have a right to it? Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments were used to justify taking land away from indigenous people in the Americas and elsewhere colonization spread. The argument being that since European colonizers would utilize the land more whether for farming, including plantations, or even early forms of industrial manufacturing they somehow had a right to take this land from people who were supposedly not using it in a productive way.

Next class, we will look at the origins of conservative political philosophy with Edmund Burke.

For the assignment, choose a quote by Locke, write it out, explain what it means and why you chose it.