Classical Liberalism: The Reason for Government-Part Two

As we further examine John Locke’s Second Treatise (part one can be read here), the question must occur to most people, “Why in the world would men, born into perfect freedom, create government, which by its very definition, means rights and liberties will be curtailed?”

THE ENDS OF GOVERNMENT

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

In the state of nature, while perfectly free in terms of rights, Locke points out that one’s right to life, liberty, and property are in danger from other men.  Thus government is created.  Locke explains this in an earlier chapter:

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Sec. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject.

Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

In essence, mankind leaves the uncertainty of the state of nature into a civil society to protect his God given rights.  Locke explains the role of government in this matter:

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases. Sec. 125.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men’s. Sec. 126.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Sec. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society.

Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

Do you see the importance in these words, in this concept?  Men do not leave the state of nature, where they enjoyed perfect freedoms, and enter into civil society under the rule of a government to either lose their rights or suffer a worse fate than which they did in the state of nature.  So in other words, the creation of government was meant to protect their divinely inspired freedom within a framework of laws and reasoned order.

THE LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT

To protect their rights, government must be limited in its scope of providing an ordered society that allows man to enjoy his inherent freedoms:

First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he cloth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

This is such an important passage.  This is such an important part of our political heritage–no–our political right.  Locke starts right out of the gate by implying that while men might cede some powers to government when a civil society is created, they can never give away their rights to life, liberty or property to the government as they are part of his soul.  Men give only enough power to government for the preservation of their fundamental rights.

For the government to take or abuse or for and individual to agree to give away his fundamental freedoms, is a violation of natural law and the law of God.  Bottom line?  God meant for you to have the rights of life, liberty, and property.  Thus you can neither cede them or have them abused by government as that goes against the will of God.

The role of government is limited by not only the limited powers it needs to safeguard the rights of men, but by the very laws of the creator.  Rights cannot be given away nor can they be taken away.

The creation of society and government is about creating stability so that the rights given to men by the Creator can be enjoyed:

And therefore, whatever form the common-wealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions: for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of nature, if they shall have armed one, or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions: for all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws; that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law; and the rulers too kept within their bounds, and not be tempted, by the power they have in their hands, to employ it to such purposes, and by such measures, as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

Men do not enter into society to have their situation worse off than it was in the state of nature.  Thus there has to be rule by law, limited by the concept that government is meant only to help man enjoy his birthright.

Locke describes another limit on government, in that it is created to preserve the property of its citizens:

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are their’s, that no body hath a right to take their substance or any part of it from them, without their own consent: without this they have no property at all; for I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think, that the supreme or legislative power of any common-wealth, can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists, wholly or in part, in assemblies which are variable, whose members, upon the dissolution of the assembly, are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments, where the legislative is in one lasting assembly always in being, or in one man, as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community; and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power, by taking what they think fit from the people: for a man’s property is not at all secure, tho’ there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.

This text ought to speak volumes today, where our current government feels that it has the right to take property from one group and use it as it wishes.  Democracy doesn’t make confiscating personal property a proper action, as it violates the ends of government.  At the very least, read the passages in bold.  Does that in part, describe our current Congress?  TARP, Cap and Trade, Health Care come to mind.  Additionally, long serving incumbents, who often live under different laws than the governed seem to fit Locke’s description perfectly.

Locke grants this:

It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.

But for instance, can a majority take property from one group and transfer it to another, even through a democratic process?  If you know your rights, the answer would be no.  It violates the fundamental reason for the creation of government–the protection of your fundamental rights and it goes beyond the stated function of government, which is to provide an atmosphere where one’s right to life, liberty, and property are safe.

The agreement between men which creates government?  That is the Social Contract, which is summarized by Locke as:

First, They are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at court, and the country man at plough. Secondly, These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately, but the good of the people. Thirdly, They must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves, or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves. Fourthly, The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.

While this part of The Second Treatise may not be as exciting as the concept of God given rights, it ought to be.  Locke sets out the reason for the creation of government and limits placed on it.

These should by the criteria by which you judge every governmental action, every piece of legislation, every executive order.  How does this action enhance my right to life, to liberty, and to personal property.  If it is detrimental to any of our natural rights, then it is not a proper function of government.

If one had to sum up this part of the Second Treatise, it would be that individual rights need the protection and security to prosper that only an organized society can offer.  Yet, even though the reality is that man needs the framework of government to enjoy his God given freedoms, the purpose of government can be no greater than to secure those rights.  So while man needs government in one sense, his freedom also requires that the very government he needs must be limited.

If anything, Locke argues that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and individual liberty.  Anything beyond the limited and necessary functions of government, individuals begin to lose their rights.

This folks is our forgotten heritage.  A political philosophy unlike no other that is concerned with something NO OTHER SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ON THIS EARTH is concerned with, the rights and liberties of men.  Yet we seem on the cuspid of forsaking the very philosophy that has keep us free for over 200 years.

Technorati Tags: John Locke, Second Treatise

Related posts:

Classical Liberalism: The Bedrock Theory of Our Rights–Part One

Tags: John Locke, Second Treatise