Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Part 1

This is about John Locke's second treatise on government. The first treatise on government, which is actually longer than the second, is no longer discussed today. Locke discusses a theory by Robert Filmer. Filmer said that kings are descended from Adam. That's why Adam had everything when he was still alone in the world. There was no one else who could have had anything. And he was able to pass this property on to his descendants, the kings.

But this theory has problems. The Bible says that man is not descended from Adam, but from Noah.

In between lies the Flood. Secondly, Adam would have to share at least with Eve and in principle also with his sons. If humans are descended from Noah, Noah would have to share with his family. It is also unclear why only the kings are descended from Noah and not all other people. It would also have to be clarified how the kings found out that they were descended from Noah.

So this theory is actually simply nonsensical.

In Locke's time, however, this theory was relatively famous, which is why Locke was concerned with it. Today, everyone thinks this theory is wrong. That's why nobody talks about it anymore. We now look at the second theory.

In it, Locke wants to explain what he himself thinks about political theory, and he begins with the question of what we should understand by political power.

John Locke wants to define a government that is not just the product of coercion and violence.  People should live together according to different rules than animals, where the strongest is simply chosen. Property must be protected. That is the real purpose of the state.

To this end, we need to define what we mean by political power.

Locke understands it as the power to enact laws, even if they are deadly.  Property must be preserved.

The laws must be observed. The state must not be based simply on the power of kings or the like, but on the execution of the laws.

Locke and Kant are similar.  It is about a constitutional state, but Locke is more interested in the preservation of property than Kant.  The community and the state must also be protected externally so that property is preserved.

By political power I also mean the right to make laws to regulate and preserve property and to use the power of the community to enforce these laws and protect the community against external harm.

---

Contract theory

Like all modern state theorists, Locke is a contract theorist.  Locke assumes that there was first a state of nature. Then people moved to the state of the state because the state of nature ends in war.

State of nature

Locke therefore follows the same principles as many other state theorists.

Locke says that there is first of all a state of nature.  In the state of nature, everyone can do what they want as long as they adhere to natural law.

Like most other contract theorists, Locke thus assumes that there is a natural law that can be recognized by reason   and that this natural law determines what one may do in the state of nature.

In the state of nature, all are free and can dispose of their property.  They are free, independent and all equal.

This is not so different from others' conception of natural law.  Locke's main point is that one can dispose of property.

This is a state of complete freedom, within the limits of natural law, to regulate their actions and dispose of their property and persons   as they think best, without requiring the permission of another or depending on his will.

Likewise a state of equality, in which all power and jurisdiction are mutual and one has no more than the other.

Consequently, there is no superiority or subordination in the state of nature. Of course, they are not all equal, provided they all have the same abilities, thoughts and intentions.

They are all equal because they have the same rights. But only as long as it's about natural law.  These are rules that you can understand.

The most important rules in the state of nature are: You must not kill yourself and you must not kill others.  Locke believes that people belong to God. That is why it is important for him not to kill.

God made people. What he has made belongs to him.

That's why they belong to him.

This is important for Locke because it leads to the prohibition of absolute monarchy.

I cannot allow someone else to kill me.  I do not have this right.

That is the decisive difference to Hobbes. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke has a very clear religious explanation.

Locke says that natural law are rules that can be understood through pure reason. Ultimately, however, his argument is based on a religious view, namely the assumption that people actually belong to God.

And that is again typical of Locke. It follows that one must not destroy one's own property and must not destroy the property of others.

 Der Besitz ist nun mal notwendig, um zu überleben.  Wenn man sich also das Leben nicht nehmen darf, dann darf man sich auch nicht das nehmen, was man zum Überleben braucht.

Im Grunde genommen gibt es zwei grundlegende Regeln: Man darf keine anderen Menschen töten und man darf nichts stehlen.

But although this is a state of freedom, it is not a state of unrestraint. In that state, man has an irrefutable freedom to dispose of his person or his property. But he has no freedom to destroy himself or even one of the creatures in his possession.

In Locke's conception, it is first of all crucial that everyone has the duty to preserve themselves because they belong to God and must not kill themselves.

That means he must preserve himself. But of course, everyone also has a duty to preserve and protect the rest of humanity.  This means that everyone must ensure that natural law is observed and that those who violate it are punished. Specifically, we are talking here about those who want to kill other people.

And that is why everyone in the state of nature is called upon to act as a kind of judge of natural law.

The state of nature is governed by a natural law that binds everyone. This law is reason and it teaches all mankind that since all are equal and independent, no one should harm another's life and property, health and freedom.

For since all men are the work of one almighty, infinitely wise Creator, all are the servants of one unconditional Lord, sent into the world at his command and for his purposes, they are his property, his work, created to last as long as he pleases and not as another pleases.

Well, that is again a very religious justification. God created people, so people belong to God.

And God sent people into the world to achieve his, i.e. God's, goals. And no worldly ruler can change that.

As every man is bound to preserve himself, and not wilfully to desert his stations, so for the same reason, and when his self-preservation is out of the question, he ought to preserve the rest of mankind as far as he can, and not unless justice is to be done to a criminal.

Now, that all men may be restrained from encroaching upon the rights of others and from doing evil to one another, and that the natural law, which desires the peace and preservation of all mankind, may be observed, in that state the execution of the natural law is placed in every man's hands, whereby every one is authorized to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as is necessary to prevent the violation of the law.

So this is how Locke imagines the state of nature. In principle, people can get along quite peacefully as long as they abide by natural law. But if someone disregards natural law and claims the property of others or wants to kill other people, you have to intervene. Every citizen is obliged to enforce natural law and punish criminals.

The problem is that people don't agree on what natural law is and how criminals should be punished.

The problem is that some people do not abide by natural law and try to kill other people.

This results in a state of war;

---

State of war

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. That's why there is war.  The problem is that some people overstep the boundaries. They not only defend themselves, but also try to kill others.

In the state of nature there is war.  There are people who want to kill other people.

Because in principle, a state of war is simply a situation, in which other people plan an attack on the lives of others and thus put themselves in a state of war. He doesn't have to have actually killed, he just has to have said he wants to kill him.

This means that anyone may kill a person who wants to take their life.  This again follows from the duty to preserve oneself.

That is a reason to join civil society.  Because then you no longer have to decide on natural law yourself.  There are now courts that interpret natural law. This puts an end to all disputes about it.  Because there are now officially appointed judges.

A state of war is a state of enmity and destruction. Therefore, if someone declares by word or deed an attempt on the life of another, he places himself in a state of war against the person against whom he has declared such an intention.

People who live together according to reason, without having a common superior on earth with power to judge between them, show the actual state of nature.

But violence or the declared intention of violence against the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to whom one could appeal for help, is a state of war.

The state of nature could actually be quite peaceful, but is disturbed by those who plan attacks on the lives of others.

The state of nature therefore leads to war. You want to avoid that.  That's why you found a state to avoid the state of war.

The avoidance of this state of war, in which there is no recourse but to heaven, when there is no authority to decide between the contending parties, has been an important reason why men, leaving the state of nature, have united to form a society.

For where there is an authority on earth, a power from which help can be obtained on appeal, the continuation of the state of war is excluded and the dispute is decided by that power.

Ultimately, founding a state is simply about avoiding violence, especially the lethal violence that results from a state of war. And from this arises the interest in founding a state.

Locke is against slavery.  There is a theory by Hugo Grotius according to which the people have voluntarily placed themselves in slavery under the king.

And therefore he has virtually sold himself forever, so that the king is now an absolute monarch forever.  Of course Locke sees it differently.

For the original liberty consists in obeying no other laws than those which are established by agreement in the community.

For this, one must have a legislature under which everyone stands and which can enact laws.  And this original freedom not to accept any laws other than those enacted by such a legislature cannot be given up, because then one would have to give up self-preservation.

In other words, you can't assume that anyone could sell themselves to a monarch, so to speak, who could then decide arbitrarily, because they can't have this right at all, because they would have to give themselves up.

You can't make yourself a slave because you have no control over your own life.  You can't give up this right because you don't have it yourself. You can't give away something that you can't dispose of yourself.

Consequently, slavery is ruled out from the outset.

The natural freedom of human beings consists in being free from any higher power on earth, not being subject to the will or legislative authority of men, but having only natural law as a rule.

The liberty of men in society consists in being under no other legislative power than that which has been established by agreement in the community.  This freedom from absolute arbitrary power is so indispensably necessary to the preservation of man, and so intimately connected with it, that he cannot give it up otherwise than by forfeiting both preservation and life.

For, since a man has no power over his own life, he cannot by contract or his own consent make himself a slave to anyone, nor give to another the absolute arbitrary power to take his life at his pleasure.

This argument can be found again and again in Locke.  You cannot give away your life or have it taken away. For one has no power over one's own life.

No one can exercise more power than he himself possesses  And he who may not take away his own life cannot give power over it to another.  

Ownership

Locke has a special reason.  Locke says that there should be property because God wills it so. This means that people should use nature, and in return they must be able to possess something.

For although nature originally belonged to everyone in common, God wanted it to be used for the benefit of mankind.

Locke believes that you can only use nature if you possess it.

You have to appropriate a part of it in order to benefit from it.  So there must be something that you can own. God wanted people to own property.

God, who has given the world to mankind in common, has also given them reason to use it to the greatest advantage and for the comfort of life. The earth and everything in it is given to mankind for their sustenance.

Locke says that you can have ownership of a piece of land. God has also given people reason so that they can use nature.

They should not just use what grows by chance, but ensure that nature provides as much as possible.

From this, Locke develops a theory of work. Every man belongs to himself.

Locke says: Whoever works has the right to keep what he has produced.  For by his labor something new has been created.  Therefore it belongs to him.

The same was already true for God. For God had created mankind and therefore mankind belongs to God.  God also did not want nature to remain uncultivated.  He had expressly said that people should benefit from nature.

They should make a difference with their work and use nature.

It is also fair to other people when you appropriate land, because working the land does not take anything away from humanity. On the contrary: it makes the land more valuable.

And the people then also get to enjoy the fruits that grow on this land.

When you work on your land, you are not only fulfilling a divine commandment, but also acting morally towards your fellow human beings if you get a lot out of it.

Property is limited by the amount you can work.

In the state of nature, you cannot own more land than you can cultivate yourself.

You can't have more fruit than you can consume yourself.  Money changes everything.  Because you can only have a limited amount of crops, otherwise they will spoil.  If you exchange them for money, you can have an infinite amount.

This is not unfair or against God's commandment, but simply a question of common sense. You should use your common sense and farm your land as well as possible.

The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we can say, are in the proper sense his property. Everything that he removes from the state that nature intended and in which she left it, he has mixed with his work, added to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

Since it has been removed by him from the common state in which nature had placed it, it has received something added by his work which excludes the common right of other men.

Ownership means that you can exclude others from using something. This is similar to Kant.

It's not immoral, because you can only own something if you exclude others from using it.

This is necessary so that you can use nature sensibly.  In this way, other people can also benefit if you treat the land sensibly yourself and get as much out of it as possible.

The one who follows this commandment of God, who subdues a piece of the earth, plows it and sows it, thereby adds something to it that is his property, to which another person has no claim.

So even if there was originally a common property, it is completely legitimate for certain people to appropriate part of it.

And that means that others can no longer have a claim to this piece of land because someone has now said, I want to cultivate it.

It's not unfair to exclude others. After all, they benefit from the fact that one person has appropriated this piece of land.

They can't then say, I'd like to have it too, because the person who took possession of it first cultivated it and made more out of it.

The measure of property was given by nature through the extension of human labor and the comforts of life. No man's labor could subdue or appropriate everything.

Nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small portion, so that it was impossible for a man in this way to interfere with the rights of another.  Or to acquire property for himself, to the detriment of his neighbor, who would still have had opportunity to acquire as great a possession as before.

In the state of nature, there is no scarcity. Because if one person has a piece of land, others can still buy land.

The principle also applies if someone plants apple trees and eats the apples themselves. Others can grow and eat apples too.

After all, there is enough land. Even after the introduction of money, this is still true. Money makes it possible for people to own a lot. However, this also creates scarcity, because other people can no longer own as much.

In principle, an almost infinite amount can still be produced. This means that there is actually no competition for possessions, because everyone who owns something and does something with it increases the total amount of possessions and thus simultaneously increases the benefit of their fellow human beings.

To this I would add that he who by his labor appropriates a piece of land does not hinder but increases the common wealth of mankind, for the food produced by an acre of enclosed and cultivated land for the sustenance of mankind is ten times more than the yield of an acre of equally rich land lying fallow as common property.

So the real sin is to acquire a field and then not cultivate it; leaving land fallow is actually a sin and contradicts the divine commandment.

On the other hand, getting as much out of it as possible and appropriating as much as possible is not unjust; on the contrary, it is fair to your fellow human beings, who thus get to enjoy the fruits that you have grown on this land.

This also happens in principle when there is the possibility of exchange.  Originally, of course, people exchange in kind, so you can exchange nuts for apples, which is basically good for both and is also fair for all people, because this actually increases the value of the traded goods.  But of course you can also exchange nuts for metal, which is ultimately money, the limit of accumulation is only reached when something perishes.  If I acquire all the apples in the country and they all go moldy, then that's unfair.

The problem arises when there is money. In principle, money can always be accumulated and it does not spoil. This now creates the possibility of excessive possessions and scarcity.

 That is not a problem in principle. But we need a society that now ensures that property is protected. Because there are people who want to exploit scarcity to take something away from me.

This gave rise to the use of money, a permanent thing that people could pick up without spoiling and, by mutual agreement, exchange for the truly useful but perishable means of subsistence.

We have already identified two central motives for founding a state. One central motive is to protect ourselves against violence, which inevitably arises in a state of nature. This is about those who seek other people's lives.

The second motive is to protect one's own property. After all, there are also people who want to take something away from you without understanding that those who own something are not actually taking anything away from their fellow human beings, but giving them something.

We have now founded a political community. We must consider what it consists of and on what foundations it should be founded.

To do this, we must separate paternal violence from the political foundation of society. According to Locke, this kind of violence cannot work.

Patriarchal power

Patriarchal power is actually based on the fact that people are not equal in every respect.

They may be politically and legally equal, but not everyone has the same abilities.

Children are not yet strong enough to look after themselves. That's why they are still under the supervision of their parents. This is because they are not yet able to use their brains properly.

However, this guardianship of the parents over the child only applies until the children reach the age of majority.  And that is precisely why no political power can be based on it.

Firstly, adults can decide for themselves what they do.  And secondly, patriarchal rule is always a temporary rule. This means that no lasting political rule can be based on the relationship between parents and children.

Parental authority is therefore something completely different from political authority or political rule.

So, political and patriarchal rule are two completely different things.  The king could not say that his subjects cannot take care of themselves and that he must therefore take care of them, because he would be taking on the role of a father over his children. But that would be inappropriate for political rule.

Children, I admit, are not born in this state of equality, but they are born for it.  Their parents have a kind of dominion over them when they come into the world and for some time afterward, but it is only temporary.

Children are not born in equality and freedom, but they are born to equality.

 This means that even patriarchal rule in the family should actually have the goal of teaching the child to use its reason independently so that it can become independent in the long run.

The aim cannot be to establish patriarchal rule forever.

However, this also means that you should not give the child freedom too early that is not helpful in the end. Because if the child never learns to make their own decisions, they won't be able to achieve this goal.

To grant it unbounded freedom before it has reason to guide it is not to grant it the prerogative of its nature to be free, but to cast it out among the cattle and abandon it to a condition as miserable and profoundly inferior to that of a man as that of an animal.

So if you bring up children in a quasi-anti-authoritarian way because you think that you would otherwise deprive them of their natural freedom, you can't count on Locke. In reality, this would mean that the child would never become free because it would never be able to use its own mind.

So that is not an option. Consequently, a political community can never aim to ensure that its subjects remain stupid forever and are therefore dependent on leadership from others.

We have now established that patriarchal society is not a good model for the state.

Now we have to think about what a state community is.

State company

So, it is clear: a state cannot be based on an absolute monarchy.  That makes no sense and is wrong.

 Nevertheless, you have to ask yourself how people live in societies.

And Locke, of course, as always, has a religious justification, because it is not good that man should be alone.

That is said of Adam before there was Eve. And that is why Eve must be created, because otherwise Adam would be alone. But this is a commandment from God that people should not be alone, but should live in community.

In addition, people always want to be in company.  So that is the third motive alongside protection against violence and the protection of property.  People also simply like to be with others.

Society comes into being when everyone gives up enforcing natural law themselves. He is then prepared to leave the enforcement of natural law to society and its legislation.

He is then no longer in a state of nature, but a member of a community.

When a society is established, disputes can be settled by the legislature.  This is the prerequisite for there being a society at all.

 Without a legislature, people live in a state of nature.  Even if they have founded a state, they are in a state of nature if they have no legislature. For without a legislature you cannot call a state a state.

Consequently, absolute monarchy is incompatible with a society.  In an absolute monarchy, there are no laws made by the people. The king makes the laws and executes them.  When the legislative and executive powers are in one person, there is no longer a judge.

In an absolute monarchy, there is no judge who is above the monarch.  Then you can no longer complain.  That was the reason why a society was founded.

That is why there can be no absolute monarchy.

Thus, as often as a number of people unite to form a society in such a way that each individual gives up his executive power of natural law and renounces it in favor of the community, a political or state society comes into being, and only then.

This transfers people from the state of nature to that of a commonwealth, in which they appoint a judge on earth with the authority to decide all disputes and atone for harm done to a member of the commonwealth.

And this judge is the legislature or the authorities appointed by it.

It is strange that the legislature judges disputes.

Normally, that is more a matter for the judiciary. Locke believes that laws alone ensure that there are no more disputes.

Locke is probably thinking above all of his rights vis-à-vis the monarch.  Now comes the reason why there can be no monarchy. So not an absolute one.

And this proves that absolute monarchy, which is seen by some people as the only government in the world, is indeed incompatible with state society and cannot be a form of state government at all.

For the purpose of state society is to avoid and remedy the inconveniences of the state of nature, which necessarily arise when everyone is a judge in his own cause, by establishing an authority known to all, to which everyone can appeal in case of suffering, injustice or dispute, and which every individual in society must obey.

We now know what the principles of our society are.  Everyone must commit to giving up their power in society. There must be a place where people can turn to if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

 Now we still need to clarify how people come to found such a company.

Foundation of the society

Because people are free, equal and independent by nature, they cannot be subjected to political power without their consent.

A society comes into being when people join together.

Thus they become a single public body, acting only as a whole.  This is similar with Locke as with other state theorists.  Locke is like many other state theorists. These are basically theories of identity, whereas nowadays we start from theories of difference.

For Locke, too, society consists in the fact that the individuals form a single political body, which then acts only as this collective body.

Unlike Rousseau, however, there is no definition of the common good or anything similar.  Expressed in Rousseauian categories, the volonté des tous and not the volonté générale always applies to the common body politic.

Because the majority determines what the common body politic does.

So they are now here this common body politic.  And if the majority moves to the right, then the entire body must move to the right.

The community is guided by the consensus of the individuals.

Individuals determine what the common good is.

Anyone who enters this society now must submit to the majority principle and accept what the majority decides.

Since men are by nature free, equal and independent, no one can be removed from this state and subjected to the political power of another without his consent. The only way in which anyone can divest himself of this natural freedom and put on the shackles of political society is by agreeing with others to join and unite in a community.

When a number of people have formed a community with the consent of each individual, they have thereby made this community into a single body with the power to act as a single body.

So you can't say afterwards that I joined this society and accepted the majority principle. But the majority is now deciding something stupid. I am against it and claim that I am the qualified minority. That is out of the question. I have said that I will bow to the will of the majority.

The idea is for people to come together and think about how they can form a society.

For since that which guides and determines a community is nothing other than the agreement of its individuals, and since that which is a body must also move in one direction, the body must necessarily move where the stronger force drives it. And that is the agreement of the majority.

The idea is simple. There is a state of nature. A community now emerges from this.

Everyone gives up their power, i.e. above all the power to make decisions. This happens because together they form a society.  They enter into a contract with each other, a social contract. This contract applies to all people in a nation.  They join forces to achieve more together. They decide together what happens in the future.

Every man, therefore, who agrees with others to form one body politic under one government, places himself under an obligation to every individual of that society to submit and submit to the decision of the majority. Or this original contract, by which he unites with others to form a society, would mean nothing.

Again, it is important to note that the social contract is not a contract of domination. It is not a commitment to always obey a monarch, but a commitment to accept other people in society.

The ruler plays no role at all at this point.

Das Problem, das Locke jetzt lösen muss, ist, dass bisher diese Gesellschaftsgründung quasi so eine Idee ist: Menschen treffen sich tatsächlich und beschließen, dass sie jetzt gemeinsam eine Gesellschaft gründen wollen.

Auch wenn man diese Konstruktion als historisch ansieht, muss man doch überlegen, was mit der nächsten Generation ist.

She did not agree to the contract.  A new social contract could be drawn up every few years. Everyone who turns 18 must then sign the Basic Law. Anyone who does not do so must leave.  That would be impractical.

 That is why Locke now says that they have tacitly consented.  That is, people who have not explicitly consented have nevertheless consented because they have not left.

A corporation can be formed by consent or by acquiescence.  Implied consent applies when someone has property in a country.  If he does not give up his property, he is a member of the corporation.

The corporation was formed to protect property.  When someone claims the protection of the corporation to protect their property, they are also accepting the laws that protect it.

Locke says that all people, on entering society, have brought their property into society.  They have not given the property away, but have made it part of that state.

This property is subject to the laws of the country in which it is located.  It is also possible for someone to have property in different countries.  Each of these properties is subject to the law of the country in which it is located.

 If he no longer wanted to be a member of the state, he would have to give up this property because it is subject to the laws of the country in which it is located. 

Since, as has been shown, every man is by nature free, and nothing but his own consent alone is capable of subjecting him to an earthly power, it is to be considered what must be understood as a sufficient declaration of a man's consent to subject him to the laws of a government.  There is a general distinction between an express and an implied consent, which concerns our present case.  No one doubts that the express consent of a man entering into a society makes him a perfect member of that society a subject of that government.  The difficulty is, what is to be considered as an implied consent, and how far it is binding.

To this I answer, that every one who has any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of a state, gives by that very fact his implied consent.  And during the continuance of that enjoyment is as much bound to obedience to the laws of that government, as any one else under it.

This is characteristic of Locke.  The laws in a state apply to the property that lies within that state's territory.

A person can leave a state at any time. However, they cannot take the property they have given to the state with them. Even if she has inherited this property, she cannot say that she no longer wants it.

But the government has a direct jurisdiction over the land alone, and it affects the owner, before he incorporates himself into society, only so far as he resides upon it and enjoys it.  Thus the obligation under which a person stands by reason of this enjoyment to submit to the government begins and ends with the enjoyment.  

Summary

We have now defined when someone is a member of a society and is subject to that society.  There are three reasons why people join a society.  People naturally want to live in a society.

They want to protect their lives and avoid being killed by others.  In the state of nature, they must prevent everyone from wanting to kill others.

Conflicts arise when people do not abide by the laws of nature. That is why it is good if there is a state that ensures that the laws are observed. For Locke, this is the legislature, i.e. the legislative power.

The third motive is to protect one's property.  That is, one cannot assign one's rights to oneself or one's property to an absolute monarch or the like. For that would be a violation of any possible original contract.

That is, you cannot allow anyone to kill you or take away your property.  An absolute monarchy is not possible.  Therefore, there can be no slavery.  That is illogical.

Nobody is allowed to decide over my life because I want to decide over it myself.  Life belongs to God.  Therefore, you cannot say that someone has voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. That does not fit in with the laws of nature and the will of God.

It is God's will for people to acquire possessions and make as much as possible out of their possessions.  However, money can also lead to competition and scarcity. That is why we must also protect ourselves against theft.

This society is founded through a social contract.  In this social contract, everyone transfers their original power to enforce the law of nature to society.

They submit to the majority principle.  Then they can no longer say that they no longer find it reasonable after all.

They have decided that the majority decides.

The contract simply makes them a member of the company.  They continue to be a member of the company as long as they are protected by it.

This means that future generations can remain bound by the laws, even if they have not signed the social contract. Because as long as they have property in this society or benefit from the property of this society, the laws also apply to them.

 In this respect, a stable society has now been established and we must then look in the next part at what rights and duties and what types of government there should actually be in this state.

One thing is certain: this state cannot be an absolute monarchy.

Video about this content: