Studied by 28 people
die rich
1. Why did Locke deny that he wrote the Second Treatise of Government in 1689?
He was fearful of persecution from the monarchy
The Second Treatise of Government contained revolutionary ideas that opposed the monarchy
Other revolutionaries at the time had been beheaded/punished for their revolutionary ideas or plots
Getting in trouble with the state, didn’t want to be associated with radicals
What would be the primary purpose of a Lockean government? Contrast this with the primary purpose of a Hobbsean government.
The primary purpose of a Lockean government was to secure equal rights of every individual to freedom
Justice & preserve right to life, liberty, property
On the other hand, the primary purpose of a Hobbsean government was to instill fear and for an absolute government to have control in order to suppress human nature
What did Locke believe was the condition of people in the state of nature?
Locke believed that all men were free and equal in the state of nature because they shared the same community
Just as creatures are of the same species
People can be satisfied. We’re reasonable enough to know that if we steal stuff from people, it’ll make society worse. Not an ongoing struggle for survival. State of nature provides with enough.
What is the key feature that for Locke distinguishes humans from other living things?
He believes that the ability for reason is what distinguishes humans from other living things
Human nature is not an ongoing state of struggle (people have enough)
There could be situations where people are desperate (Hobbes is a perpetual state of desperation)
MY DOOGGGG HAS REASSONN HE CAN TELL TIME
PETERS HAS A DOG WOOF
Dont be mean to animals
Its a slippery slope.
What gives us certain inalienable rights according to Locke?
According to Locke, rationality gives humans the for self-mastery, and thus, inalienable rights
We can make arguments as to why we should have rights. That's why we have these rights.
Under what circumstances would Locke argue that a man could give up his freedom and the rights that guarantee such freedom?
Locke would argue that a man could give up his freedom and the rights if they renounce reason and commit a crime or live a life of violence and “brutish force”
Illiberal and extreme actions mean you’re not fully human, so don’t expect us to treat you like one. [mic drop]
Death penalty and prison
Does Locke focus on establishing equality of condition or equality of opportunity?
Locke primarily focuses on establishing equality of opportunity rather than equality of condition. He states that all men are biologically equal like creatures of the same species so they should all be treated equally, but their own actions determine the rest.
Idea of equality under the law is derived from Locke
According to Locke, what allows men to claim property?
According to Locke, men can claim property through their labor and the mixing of their labor with unowned resources in nature.
People can not make the most of their life unless their property is secure
Conducive to human flourishing
For Locke, can a person exercise self-mastery or self-rule without property?
No, he believes that self-ownership is the foundation for the ownership of external goods. “A man owns what he is and is what he owns,”
Without property, people do not have the tools to exercise self-mastery
According to Locke, are there limits to the amount of property a person may own?
Locke believes that excess wealth should not spoil. If wealth is simply sitting somewhere then it is going to waste and should be shared instead.
Property should be in use
In the state of nature there are limits to how much people can accumulate
In civilization, there are not limits & people can accumulate as much property as they want
MONEY LUBRICATES THE TRANSACTION OF PRODUCTS
For Locke what constitutes property?
Life, liberty, estate
What have been the economic consequences of the adoption of property rights for those societies that have them?
May create economic inequality (there will be some who have tons of property, others who have none)
Money allows for unlimited property accumulation
Could have the rich exploit the poor
Economic prosperity is correlated with govt protections of rights
For Locke, in order for a government's authority not to be considered oppressive of individual autonomy what would be required?
Consent of the governed to obey the government’s rules. If the citizens are following laws made by themselves, obeying themselves, maintains freedom.
Comes from voluntary consent of the citizens
A true, completely participatory government would be ideal but we’re too many ppl so we should use representative democracy
Consent is needed (Locke’s definition of consent is different from Hobbes)
No longer dependent on God to give consent to rulers
Consent now comes from the people
For Locke what is the difference between those who constitute a society and who constitute that society's government?
The ones who constitute as a society is its members who come together naturally
The society’s government is the representatives who are elected by the citizens in the society
A community requires unanimous agreement (if you say no you go to a different community)
The possibility for multiple types of government to exist (this is very Rousseau)
Governments do not require unanimous agreement (consent), only majority consent to govern
Assumption that if you don’t like the government, you can leave, but you can’t not follow the rules if you do not agree
You either abide by the laws or you go somewhere where you agree with the laws
According to Locke, people can give either "express" or "tacit” consent to the society they belong to. What is the difference between these two kinds of consent?
Express consent = actively proclaiming your loyalty (ex. oath to government/society)
Tacit consent = they consent simply by living in that society and reaping the benefits and protections of that society. (ppl can choose to leave and go because they’re tacitly consenting, not expressively consenting, which is more binding and obligatory)
Only immigrants need to do express consent
Is it important for a Lockean government to be able to claim that its citizens have consented to being governed? Explain.
Yes. If we adhere to the principle of individual autonomy which Locke talks about in his Second Treatise (he thinks it's super important), then the only way to justify political authority is for it to be derived from voluntary consent of all citizens. In a community of self-governing citizens, every person would obey only himself and would retain the freedom he would have if there was no government.
In obeying the rules of society, men submit only to what they themselves have authorized.
Yes, otherwise the government is not legitimate and people can find a way to disobey the law
No flourishing because natural rights no longer protected
How does Locke justify a society being governed by the majority?
Locke assumes that because each individual contributes one unit of force equal to that of every other individual, the course of action favoured by the majority should prevail because of its greater force.
He also argues that it is not realistic to acquire the consent of every individual for every governmental decision, and even if we were able to get everyone together it would be impossible to reach unanimous consent. Therefore the rule of the majority is the only way to allow individuals to participate equally in decision making.
Not realistic to satisfy everyone on every policy. Gotta make a decision: satisfy more or less? More (majority) is better!
Not everybody is political; not everyone cares
“Some people would rather go off and eat doritos”
Would rather raise their kids or other people’s kids!
Hes okay with that and so thats why we have representative democracy not direct
Divide government power so they can’t take advantage of their authority
According to Thomas Jefferson, what constraint must operate upon the majority in order for them to exercise their political will over the minority?
Their will must be reasonable and there must be laws protecting violations of minority rights or oppression of minorities.
CONSTRAINTS: Majority can rule BUT they can't take away natural rights (life, liberty, estate)
Everyone’s inalienable rights are protected regardless of being majority or minority
Why? B/c govt was created to protect these rights. All rights respected to prevent majority tyranny
What is Locke's opinion of having an absolute concentration of political power?
Against it, wants to prevent it
He believed in separation of powers; there should be a legislative, judicial and executive branch of government to prevent the absolute concentration of power among the few.
Absolute power allows people’s natural rights to be denied (bad)
With separation of powers, people’s natural rights remain inalienable. (Life, Liberty, State)
According to Locke, what two conditions would prevent arbitrary abuse of power?
1) Governmental power must conform to the rule of law (equality for all under the law)
People who make the rules must also live by them
2) Separation of powers must be practiced in government
Illiberal governments are characterized by inequality under the law
Locke makes a special case for the executive having prerogative power. What is prerogative power and what justifies its use?
Prerogative power is the ability to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.
Conditions
It should be utilized for the benefit of the public, not for the executive’s own advantage
Should be employed when legislature cannot address an issue due to its infrequency or unforeseen nature
Should be used only when it is truly necessary
Certain circumstances make it okay for the executive to disobey the law and form an absolute government
Emergency: war, famine, pandemic
Possibility for absolute government in the name of safety (people can not agree on what the state of an emergency is)
Tamed down example is the reaction to COVID in 2020?
Technically, there is an opportunity in Lockean for absolute govt if the community thinks they are in constant danger.
Nixon, who was the only President to ever resign from office, used what he felt were his prerogative powers as President of the United States. How did he justify his actions?
“In war time, a President does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution.”
Watergate: Vietnam war, it tooked like society was falling apart
Nixon sent spies into the watergate hotel to find out who would run in each constituency in the united states so he could ruin them
Justified it by stating that the united states was falling apart (for the integrity of the country)
The people disagreed (not an emergency)
How does Locke justify the executive having prerogative powers?
While law is fixed, it is the nature of things to always be in motion; prerogative allows for a flexible response to this natural flux.
No time for consensus and debate in emergency; must act immediately
Legislatures are slow
In order to justify the use of prerogative power, Locke outlined three potential constraints of legislatures. What were they?
The nature of the legislative power - laws are fixed
The nature of the people - people need to be satisfied, to be flourishing
The nature of nature - things are always in motion, changing.
Why did Locke argue that the executive's prerogative powers are greatest in foreign affairs?
Because such matters cannot be governed by law
Executive must be allowed to employ at his discretion the whole force of the community against foreign enemies
Powers are for the betterment of the entire community rather than personal gain
Rather than have executive prerogative powers what did the ancient Romans do in order to deal with emergency situations?
The Romans would appoint one person as Dictator for 6 months to deal with the emergency
The dictator could not change any formal institutions of government and his term was too short to cause any permanent harm
According to Locke, what types of rulers should never have to fear a revolution?
Wise rulers
Because people are slow to come to revolution
Smart
In order for revolution to be justified what threshold did Locke believe needed to be met?
The revolution is to establish whatever form of government is most likely to serve the public good
Arising from the ultimate authority of the people - the majority, not individual men
Revolution permitted if the government regularly abuses life, liberty, and estate
Better to be briefly without government compared to tyranical government
which side is Locke on?
right
limits in nature and in government
in nature, natural limits: what you can use
But in government, money has no limits. Because they protect ur rights to prosper
locke and hobbes: state of nature of humans is selfish
locke: Yeah we’re selfish but not all the time. But still a positive element to it. Leads to economic prosperity!! A source of our productivity. Can be good
Hobbes: We’re selfish and that leaves to unending conflict. Gotta tame the state of nature.
Locke vs hobbes: unalienable rights
locke: Unalienable right to life, liberty and property. All of these are ur property. We all have property, not just including our stuff but also our body and intelligence. Certain things belong to you. Roots to ending slavery.
hobbes: Only right to life.
hobbes vs locke: what is government’s purpose
locke: Government’s purpose is justice. Should be preserving your rights.
hobbes: Government is to maintain order. we don’t need justice because we’ll never agree when it is served.
hobbes vs locke: consent is necessary but diff ways to achieve
locke: consent must be voluntary
hobbes: Consent can be given through force.
hobbes vs locke: do they believe in reason? why it important
Both believe in reason as a mechanism to find the best form of government. Both enlightenment thinkers so obviously
hobbes vs locke: when do we need an authoritarian government?
locke: We shouldn’t have an authoritarian government all the time, only during specific times. But those situations are rare. Believes in limited government. Power isn’t in one place, it’s divided and separated.
hobbes: We always need an authoritarian government. One single power.
both: Both agree at some level that authority is necessary.
hobbes vs locke: religion?
locke: Division of government and religion. Allowed to freely exist but not supposed to be part of the system. Separation of the two.
hobbes: Religion could be used as a tool, but never be above the state. Used to help establish order. Supports theocracy.
hobbes vs locke: revolt yay or nay
locke: You’re allowed to revolt if the government is routinely violating your rights.
hobbes: Revolution is never allowed because you’ll make things worse, because human nature is horrible
locke vs hobbes: individual vs community rights, why
locke: Focus on individual rights. Then if an individual flourishes, can build an flourishing society.
hobbes: Focus on community, overall social order
hobbes vs locke: do they both believe in state of nature where people are equal?
Both believe in state of nature, people are equal
describe Locke’s state of nature
God gives the world to men in common
Labour gives a man title to property taken from the common
The amount of property held by anyone is limited to what he can use
Doesn’t make sense to hoard
Not conducive to social harmony
There is no conflict over property because there is no reason for anyone to take so much that he infringes on the claims of others
No money
describe Locke’s view of current society
Money is introduced
Accumulation now becomes unlimited as money can be saved
Purpose of gov now becomes to secure/protect right to property
Why?????????
Because it incentivizes productivity, it means that people will work harder and invest time into increasing their property
10 key ideas associated with locke
We have natural rights to life liberty and estate and only under exceptional circumstances should these rights ever be violated. (for locke,, without these we cannot achieve self-mastery.” governments must secure these rights for us
Our capacity to reason is critical to our humanity and critical to our understanding of our natural rights
Each of us acts in ways that is consistent with his/her economic self interest; we do this because it is necessary for our survival. Did not see the state of nature as one of ongoing war.
The equality locke speaks of refers to an equality of political rights not an equality of aptitudes or outcomes. The rights advocates are critical for allowing “self mastery”.
We are not naturally political nor are we natrually social but we are naturally inclined to master our environment
For locke the primary reason why humans become political is to protect their propert.
Places just government above mere order fearing the possibility of tyrannical governmnet. Was concerned with evaluating different kinds of government
Justice is above order
Very strong emphasis on rule of law, division of power and limited government.
Supported the executive branch having prerogative power. In times of peace legislature is supreme but in times of crisis executive is supreme
Supported representative democracy over dictatorship
Note
Flashcard