Political Theory- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government - Case Study Example

Political Theory- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government Regarded as one of the standing relating to issues of politics, governance and political theory, Locke successfully managed to present a strong theme in his work on the Second Treatise of government. Through putting into context the civil government he formed a basis of examining whether governments were doing the right thing in terms of representation of the masses. His work however goes beyond the political concept and touches more on political philosophy as evidenced by other ideas of authors during his time and others after his time. The text is a significant piece of work while considering political theory as it focuses on specifics in politics on the side of the rulers and leaders to the subjects as well as nature. Borrowing from the initial beginning of life as evidenced in chapter one the first section, Locke continuously enhances in developing his manifestation and view of the state. Through dividing his works into various chapters, Locke continuously divided the book into sections in each chapter that follows each other in the next chapter. It is however important to note that much of Locke’s work was influenced by the occurrences in both America and England and mostly in England during that period. It is also evident that other works of other authors influenced Locke’s writing while he also influenced other authors many years later, with his concept of right to revolt mostly borrowed during the American Revolution. Throughout the second treatise, Locke ensures development of specific themes that he then discusses to portray how they relate with human beings and life (Locke 350). The first concept that Locke focuses on is directed at the state of nature, a time when life is believed to have started dafter Adam’s creation. He asserts that during that period, the was no obligation for any individual to obey or adhere to the rules presented by another individual but rather, all humans were supposed to remain judges of what is required by the law of nature. Apart from covering the law of nature, Locke covers and explains other topics throughout his book under various sections that complement each other with subjects relating to conquest and slavery, property ownership, representative government as well as why individuals hold a right to revolution. Despite the various sections in the book, it is possible to capture and relate all the information to the major areas of concern depicted in the paper. These concepts of consideration closely inter-relate to each other as it sounds impossible at some instances to mention one without the other. In understanding the state of nature, some considerations are essential as the state of nature touches on both individuals and property an indication that power relates to people and what each person owns. In other words, what Locke intends to signify is that in order to develop a good understanding of the political power as well as tracing its origin, it is essential to consider the state that every individual is in as a result of nature (Locke 350). Such a state relates to a place where individuals possess perfect freedom of acting as well as disposing their own possessions at ease without considering others views or opinions but rather doing it to any individual that they deem fit within the laws of nature. People in that form of sate are free and there is no need to seek permission to act upon anything or depend on what others wish or seek others to arrange issues on their behalf. The natural state is also effective in that it presents significant equality among all members with ruling and power not concentrated in some individuals hands but rather based on a reciprocal concept where everyone possesses equal power and jurisdiction as the other. What that signifies is that human beings possess equal powers and should therefore remain equal amongst them considering that they were born indiscriminately; they all belong to the same species and likewise possess equal natural advantages as well as faculties. Therefore, no individual posses’ relationship of subordination to the other or subjection but should do that to God only who should serves as the ruler of all of them. Therefore, if a person was to demand subjection or subordination from others, it should only result from God Himself through clearly presenting a single person with authority through conferring to him an un-doubtful right to dominion as well as sovereignty. Locke’s views of the sate of nature therefore, tends to borrow more from an abolitionist approach but he makes it clear that in the world, no divinely ordained monarch exists or have ever existed and thus there is need for equality among people. He purports that not unless God himself will ordain such a monarch, all other leaders need to adhere to leadership closely based on the state of nature without exercising power and authority to the people. He however presents a consideration that portrays that lack of institutional government is not an indicator that lawlessness is rampart in the state of nature. That occurs because the laws of God and nature are still within and they guide on everything that touches on human life and people are still subject to these laws. Locke insists on the importance of state of nature in despite the possibility of continual danger arguing that continual danger makes it freer (Locke 352). On the alternative to natural state, Locke is against a political dictatorship or tyranny but rather proposes a democratic leadership. That form of government formation results from people democratically electing government officials as where the democratically elected government ensures effective protection of basic human rights that includes life, property as well as liberty under the rule of law. In the natural state, political power is not withheld by anyone therefore individuals are not obligated to adhere to directions of one person or a number of persons. However, everybody is tasked with a role of ensuring pronouncing justice with authority and ensure administering of punishment to anyone who acts on contrary with the natural law. That indicates that every action of a person must be right and no one has the right to do his will without considering one’s actions on others. The state of nature therefore is accompanied by a law of nature that is essential for governing such state and everyone must oblige to that law and reason. The law and its reason is also responsible for teaching man that no one has the right of harming another while living. The specifics of the law however are unwritten, an implication that there exist a possibility of people misapplying the law to favor their case. Since there lacks a commonly recognized independent judge to solve the disputes and concerns after breaking the law, there lacks a specific way of correcting the misapplications or achieving an effective process to restrain those violating the law of nature. With all the freedom presented to a man in the natural state, as the state of nature is set up, the man becomes an absolute lord of himself as well as possessions where such a man becomes equal to greatest as is not a subject to anybody. Considering those priorities, the possibility of such a man losing his freedom, giving up his empire as well as subjecting himself to the dominion and rule of another man it is unknown why such a man would like to part with those benefits (Locke 353). The reason to such an issue is obvious as it relates to the fact that despite the rights present in the state of nature, enjoyment of such rights is uncertain with constant exposure to the invasion of others. Since all other men are kings and his equal too and there lacks strict observers of equity and justice, it sounds unsafe to have full enjoyment of the property the man possesses. That as a result leads to insecurity and unsafe situation that makes the man feel to quit such a state despite the freedoms but owing to continual fears as well as dangers. That serves as the main reason that man moves out to others to seek union with an aim of joining society with others that are already united or have the same ideas like him to unite. The basis of the unison relies on mutual preservation of lives, liberties as well as property that as a result leads to the formation of governments. Therefore, Locke asserts that the reason behind forming political or civil society is aimed at avoiding the state of war experienced in the state of nature as well as lack of protection of private property and men returns to the same state upon dissolution of government (tyranny). In relation to conquest and slavery (chapter 4), Locke provides a justification for slavery where he renders all forms of slavery existing as invalid (Locke 355). Consequently, as an individual may not submit to slavery when it comes, there is amoral reason to try to throw off and run away when slavery come calling. In that perspective, what Locke tends to explain is through relating the idea of submission of absolute monarchy as a form of violating the law of nature as it does not allow a person to enslave oneself (Locke 355). In his arguments, Locke asserts that where there occur an unjust war, aggressors in such a war fail to possess any right to claim conquest suggesting that everything that those aggressors take may be retaken immediately if those dispossessing them hold such powers. He continues to assert that even the children of the conquered possess the rights of repossessing but discounts the concept of ancient usurpation as one that becomes unlawful with time. He proceeds with an exploration of reasons and facts where a conqueror may possess rights and at the same time become just. He argues how a conqueror may gain and equally presents a situation that reclaiming what he gained is unlawful. It is important to note that the concept behind the issue of conquering that Locke emphasized was based on England during the time he wrote his work. He asserts that the conqueror possesses no authority over those persons that conquered with him, owing to the fact that such persons had just reasons to wage for the war. Locke therefore implied that despite William achievements in conquering, despite any other rights he may have had in England, he possessed no rights of claiming kingship over his fellow Normans through attributing it to the right of conquest. The subdued fall under the conqueror only if they engage in the fighting but others who fall under the defeated aggressor are not part of the subjects that fall under the aggressor who becomes the winner. It is attributed to the fact that the subjects of the defeated aggressor lacked the power to do an unjust thing an indication that they had little say relating to the powers withheld by their leaders and should therefore not be punished for the actions of the defeated aggressor as he was not acting as their representative. Although the successful aggressor may capture the defeated aggressor in an unjust war, the same cannot happen to his property as that would delaine his wife and children the right to good life. Although the property rightfully belongs to the defeated aggressor, seizing such property will serve in humiliating the innocent wife and children. In relation to property, Locke asserts that the reasons behind creation of civil or political society resulted with an aim of protecting property (Locke 362). In asserting that, he relates property to everything that an individual owns from estates to family and also life. The reason behind creation of a government therefore serves with an aim of serving the private interests of its members. His overall argument about property and the government therefore entails the concept that property possesses the capability of predating the existence of government signifying that it is possible to dedicate societies to property protection. His concept is mostly borrowed by the Marxist scholars who perceive him as the originator bourgeois capitalism with Max associated as one of the major borrowers of Locke’s idea towards property and all those others against communism holding the same perception. The other concept under consideration that, Locke focused on a legitimate contract as opposed to a republic indicating that contractual government would entail existence of an agreement between citizens and a monarch or any other form of leadership. His notions of people’s right towards the actions of government indicated that people had a right to cancel their contract with the government whenever the leaders failed to adhere to what the contract stated (Locke 376). The notion played a significant role in influencing the intellectuals’ movements in the America revolution years later and achievement of the Revolution I credited to borrowing from his work. On the other consideration, Locke focused on the right to revolution as his part of ensuring the government adheres to the social contract depicted in his social contract theory. He recognized the need for people to instigate a revolution against the government if it fails to adhere to the social contract through engaging in actions that are against the interests of its citizens mostly evidenced in tyranny (Locke 385). Most of the notable work during the 17th century that supports the concept of Locke is related to the work of Thomas Hobbles. As a matter of fact Locke borrowed significantly from Hobbes theories that were based on the state of nature despite his major arguments and view of human nature taking a more negative approach while Locke focused on a more positive approach. Hobbes arguments were seen in the light of an absolutist approach of the state of nature of Locke occurs in such light as he equally disagreed with him in some concepts. Hobbes being born in England experienced a lot of civil wars during his life prompting him to spend a decade in Paris for a decade as mostly owing to his association with the royalist side where he stayed until 1651 (Strauss 112). As a forerunner of Locke, Hobbes focused on defending absolute sovereignty as his political philosophy that influenced Locke to focus on the state of nature and how states were better arranged. The other significant and most likely absolute supporter of Locke is Karl Marx with his view of the state borrowing significantly from Locke’s concept. As a matter of fact, majority of scholars attributes Marx’ work and Marxist theories resulted from the work that Locke started. It is attributed to the concepts that Marx observes in relation to functions as well as rights of the government and issue that may lead t revolutions. In John Locke’s assumption, the government became functional only if it ensured sustaining the will of the citizens and it has to ensure that as a result of the social contract formation between the government and its people. Consequently, the government was obligated to ensure provision of natural rights to the people with life, liberty as well as property serving as the contributors of natural rights. In short, Locke asserted that for governments to become sustainable there existed a need of ensuring equitability and fairness on its side (Marx 165). He also asserted the need for revolting against a government that fails to adhere to such issues of the people as it was the people that led to the formation of such a government to ensure protection of their properties. Marx and Locke ideas are aligned in the same concept and ideas of thinking despite the fact that Marx deviates from the same notion of implicit trust good of a government. That occurs mostly where Marx considers the ruling class serving in supporting the government where he portrays how the ruling class will turn the government to ensure representation of the powerful and the ruling class alone at the cost of others. Despite that difference, Karl Max and Locke agree on other issues with Marx supporting the sentiments echoed by Locke about evolutions where he expounds further in concluding that revolutions and uprisings occur as a result of inequalities (Nordskog 341). To both Max and Locke, tyranny brings these inequities brings up revolutions with an aim of addressing the differences in society created by the government against the will of the citizens. In conclusion, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a significant piece of work and equally a major contributor to the field of politics as the political theory depicted plays an important role in politics. Forming his basis on a number of concepts, Locke successfully manages to cross examine the different concepts under consideration that will ensure formation of an effective government. influenced by the civil wars in Europe and especially in England and works of other scholars mostly Thomas Hobbes, Locke successfully opened a new chapter in political theory. His work is equally supported by Karl Marx and the Marxist theorists signifying its importance. Various political actions that followed after his work in the 17th century borrowed mostly from his ideas. Works Cited Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Raleigh: Alex Catalogue, 1990. Print. Marx, Karl. Political Writings. New York: Random House, 2007. Print. Nordskog, John E. Contemporary Social Reform Movements: Principles and Readings. New York: Scribner, 2008. Print. Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. Chicago: Phoenix Books, U of Chicago P, 1963. Print. Read More