John Locke
Problem: absolute and arbitrary government or political authority.
Solution: political power as trust. Only limited government is legitimate.
Relevance:
● Locke’s theory of political power limited by fundamental individual rights lies at the heart of
the ideal of liberal democracy.
● Locke’s argument influenced the Declaration of Independence. In particular, its claim that
“all men are created equal . . .” and its defense of the rights and liberties of individuals against
government. This defense is based on the claim that the authority of the state has its source, and hence
justification, in the will (consent) of the people.
● Locke’s theory of private property has given rise to both right libertarianism & left
libertarianism.
Key concepts: state of nature, laws of nature, natural rights, social contract, limited government, rule
of law, express consent, tacit consent.
In a nutshell
A. Justifying limited government – Locke seeks to argue that only limited government can secure us
against arbitrary political power, thereby securing our natural rights.
B. How does he, then, argue for, justify, limited government? By asking and answering the question
“How do some people acquire authority over others?”
C. He answers that individuals in a state of nature—which he claims is not state of war but a state
of inconvenience (the problem)—have entered into a two-stage social contract—an agreement
between all the people to establish, first, a political society, and, second, a government which is
entrusted with protecting everyone’s natural rights.
D. Justifying political obligation – individuals ought to obey the law
a. because they have given their consent (social contract), and
b. because the law (the limited government) protect their natural rights – fulfils its trust. If the
government violates its trust, individuals have the right to disobey the law.
Like Hobbes, Locke uses the concepts of state of nature, natural law, natural rights, and social
contract to justify political power. Unlike Hobbes, however, Locke employs these concepts to defend a
limited government as the only legitimate government. Recall: these concepts can be used to defend
different kinds of political power depending on the specific interpretations they assigned to them.
Therefore: what do we need to know?
First: what is the state of nature? Why is it a state of inconvenience?
Second: what is the social contract? How does it justify limited government? That is, why do
individuals give their consent only to a limited government?
Third: what is the nature of a limited government? What renders government limited?
Four: if political obligation is grounded in consent, why does Locke distinguish between express
and tacit consent?
Five: when are individuals justified in disobeying the law or resisting the government?
1
First question: what is Locke’s conception of state of nature?
1. Individuals are free and equal. (Compare Hobbes.)
A. Morally equal:
(1) all are God’s creation in the same way. Hence:
(2) All are equal in the sense that no one is a master of another, superior to another; no one is
subordinate to another: no one has power over another.
B. Free – but not to do whatever they like, for all are bound by the law of nature not to harm each
other. The state of nature, then, is “a state of liberty, yet it is not state of licence.” (Sect.6; italics
original. See also sect. 22 on “the liberty of man, in society”).
(1) Natural freedom – the individual is free from “the inconstant, uncertain, unknown,
arbitrary rule of another man,” (sect. 22, p. 292)) or from “absolute, arbitrary power of another,” (sect.
23, p. 292) “to follow my own will in all things,” (sect. 23) but only within the bounds of the law of
nature. Therefore:
(A) The individual is not free “to destroy himself” (sect. 6, p. 287), not free to harm
others’ in their natural rights.
(B) Locke vs. Hobbes – while Hobbes holds that freedom is “the silence [absence] of
the law,” Locke insists that freedom is the silence [absence] of arbitrary law. Politically, then, the
“liberty of man . . . is to be under no other legislative power, but that established by consent, in the
commonwealth [state], nor under the dominion [control/rule] of any will, or restraint of any law, but
what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it” (sect. 22, p. 292; original italics).
2. The state of nature is governed by a law of nature – a moral state
A. Using the traditional language of natural law, Locke views it as an is an objective moral
standard, discoverable by reason, binding on all rational beings, at all time, and all places. (Contrast
with Hobbes who views natural laws not as moral absolutes, commands or duties, but merely advisory
and conditional (“if-then”).
B. Locke identifies natural law with the law of God on the one hand, and the dictates of reason on
the other.
C. The law of nature commands people, first, not to harm each other, and second, to preserve each
other as well as themselves. (Compare Hobbes.) “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it,
which obliges everyone: And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind ..., that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession.” (sect. 6, p. 313;
original italics.) To emphasize: no one should harm one another, especially invading the natural rights
of others.
D. The law of nature generates natural rights (though the two are distinct).
3. Natural rights are rights that everyone has simply by virtue of being human beings (they are “human
rights”.) Therefore: they can neither be granted nor taken away by any person or political authority;
they are, that is, inalienable rights.
A. What specific natural rights does Locke defend? Life, liberty and property (or possessions).
2
B. The right to private property — the only natural right Locke analyses — serves as a prototype of
what a natural right is.
4. The natural right to private property
A. Locke employs “property” in broad and narrow senses. Broadly understood, “property”
embraces the 3 natural rights: life, liberty, and possessions. Narrowly understood, “property” is one of
the three natural rights.
B. How does Locke justify the right to private property?
C. Locke’s legitimation of inequality of property.
a. Initially, Locke’s argument justifies a rough equality of possession. Why so? Because the
acquisition of property is limited by two constraints:
(1) Non-spoilage. An owner must not let resources spoil uselessly in his possession.
(2) Acquisition of property should leave “enough and as good” resources to others.
b. In order justify inequality of property, Locke has to sidestep these two limitations on the
acquisition of property:
(1) The introduction of money undermines the non-spoilage limit.
(2) The claim that labor creates value (labor theory of value) undermines the “enough and as
good” constraint.
5. The state of nature is “a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation” not “a state of
enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction” (Wootton, sect. 19, p. 291).
A. Locke’s conception of a state of war:
a. “Force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war” (Wootton, sect. 19, p. 291).
b. A state of war is possible not only in the state of nature, but also in civil society.
6. The state of nature is a state of inconvenience – because Locke seeks to justify limited government,
he imagines state of nature with “inconveniencies” but not as an unbearable state of war. Government,
therefore, is needed to remedy the “inconveniencies” of the state of nature. That is: if the problem in
the state of nature is limited, so must be the government erected for its remedy.
Second question: what is the social contract? How does it justify limited government? That
is, why do individuals give their consent only to a limited government?
1. Social contract explains the move from the state of nature to political society as a response to the
inconveniences of the former.
A. Two-stage social contract – unlike Hobbes’s social contract, and like traditional social
contract, Locke’s consists of two stages:
a. Contract of (civil/political) society.
b. Contract of government – it justifies limited government.
B. Some claim that his social contract have three stages:
first, all individuals must agree unanimously to come together as a community and
pool their natural powers so that they can act together to uphold one another’s rights;
second, the members of this community must agree by a majority vote to set up
legislative and other institutions;
third, property owners in a society must agree, either personally or through their
3
representatives, to whatever taxes are imposed on the people.
Third question: what is the nature of a limited government? What renders government
limited?
first, what specific limits constrain justified political power (political authority)?;
second, specifically, what reasons does Locke provide for rejecting absolute political
authority?;
third, what action should people take if the government abuse its power? (Answers follows in
1., 2., and 3., respectively.)
1. First, what specific limits constrain political power (political authority)?
A. Natural rights are not transferred, only the three powers which each one has in the state
of nature of protecting them – the three executive powers of the law of nature. Natural right remain the
possession of individuals and constrain all people, including the government. Relatedly,
B. The task of government is not to replace natural law (and natural rights) but to give it the
precision, the clarity, and the impartial enforceability that were lacking in the state of nature. Hence,
C. The rule of law (Contrast with Hobbes). It can be seen as a shorthand phrase for all the
devices of limited government that are customarily promulgated under the head of constitutional
protection of citizens` rights. More specifically:
a. It stands first to the idea that law excludes the exercise of arbitrary power. (Recall:
this is Locke’s problem, and contrast with Hobbes’s rejection of the rule of law.)
b. It stands for equality of all persons before the law and the equal subjection of both
subjects and governmental officials to the law.
c. It embraces the idea that individual rights must receive legal protection.
d. Locke does not develop at any length the idea of separation of powers. Indeed, he
stresses that the legislature should be in a position to dominate the other branches of government.
Unless magistrates are subject to the rule of law, Locke argues, individuals remain in a state of nature
with their rulers. Absolute monarchy is a form of war, not of government.
e. Prerogative. Locke rejects utterly the view that prerogative should be regarded as a
distinct source of authority.
Government (political authority) as a trustee. The underlying argument here is that just
political power (government) should be regarded as a trustee of the people.
1. A trustee is a person (government, for Locke) who has a duty, created by the his undertaking,
to act primarily for another’s (the people’s, for Locke) benefit in matters connected with such
undertaking. That is, the people entrust the government with protecting their natural rights (by
exercising the 3 executive powers of the natural law). The government is created (contract of
government) for performing this job only. Therefore:
2. The contract of government is an agreement by which the people deliver, transfer to the
government the executive power of the law of nature on the condition that if the government violates
its trust, these powers will be restored to the people, not to the state of nature, but to the people in the
state of political society that was created by the ‘contract of society’ – the first stage of Locke’s twostage social contract.
4
2. Second, specifically, what reasons does Locke provide for rejecting absolute political
authority? (They are closely related)
A. People hold their natural rights as a sort of trust from God and therefore cannot transfer
them to the arbitrary power of another. Put differently, natural rights are inalienable.
B. Recall that in the state of nature, all are equal in the sense that no one has power over
another. No one has singled out by God with any mark of natural authority over others. Therefore,
nothing can put anyone under the authority of anybody else except his own consent. (See Wootton,
discussion question (1).) And, importantly,
C. it would be against the will of God to give consent to absolute and arbitrary power which, in
the first place, God rules out.
D. As rational and self-interested beings, individuals act always to promote their good. It
would be, therefore, irrational for individuals to worsen their condition by moving from the state of
nature (equal power) to a state of subordination to absolute and arbitrary power.
E. The natural law is absolutely and universally binding, including of course, civil government.
3. Third, what action should people take if the government abuse its power?
Read Klosko for the answer.
This question should be understood in the context of the question of political obligation,
A. Citizens’ obligation to obey the laws of their state is based on consent. Recall: people are
free and equal (state of nature); none is naturally subject to any government.
B. The obligation to obey the laws arises either from express consent or ‘tacit consent.’
Discussion question: “There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent”. What is the
distinction? Why does Locke make it?
5