Locke

Sir Robert Filmer

• staunch royalist

• protected monarchy based on divine right

• even though Hobbes was pro-monarchy, Hobbes criticized him because he didn’t agree with the reasoning of divine right

• Locke criticized him, had no shared viewpoints with him (unlike Hobbes)

• patriarchalism (in contrast to Locke and Hobbes’ development of liberalism)

at what point does Britain become a constitutional monarchy?

1688 – William and Mary brought to rule on the condition that they recognize the limits of the power of the crown

at what point can we say that liberalism was truly born?

1689, with the Bill of Rights

how are Locke and Hobbes similar?

• both justify monarchical societies

• both are against justifying legitimate political authority through divine right

• both believe in equality of individuals

• consent is key for both, making both trailblazers in liberalism, as they developed the importance of individual consent

how are Locke and Hobbes different?

• Locke focused more on limits to the monarch’s power while Hobbes focused more on political order

  • Locke wanted limited sovereignty while Hobbes wanted absolute authority

• Locke creates natural property rights

• Locke doesn’t believe the state of nature is a terrible place, unlike Hobbes, he believes it’s harmonious

• reasons of why people will consent are different for Locke and Hobbes

why is Locke significant in terms of the civil war?

he provided the moral and philosophical justification for the parliamentarians

patriarchalism vs liberalism

patriarchalism:

• hierarchy

• political inequality as natural state

• absolute authority

liberalism:

• individuals naturally equal

• individuals must consent

• limits on authority (as developed by Locke, not Hobbes)

how does Locke rethink Filmer’s account of hierarchical authority?

says subjects are property of god, not sovereign. sovereign must care for subjects but has limited authority because the subjects are not his.

2 key ideas of Locke

• authority must be limited

• idea of equality is based in property

why should humans enter into political society, according to Locke?

even thought the state of nature isn’t a terrible place to live in, there is no authority that can protect property rights. must enter into political society so that your property is protected. (remember that live and liberty are also part of one’s property)

do property rights exist in the state of nature for Locke?

yes, they exist, but there isn’t an authority to protect them

Locke’s consequentialist argument

• everyone is better off if the total amount of value and resources is increased by one’s appropriation of property

• for example, picking berries and using them to make jam, when they would have gone to waste otherwise

  • thereby increasing the total amount of food

problem with the consequentialist argument

if I make jam and I have right to it because it belongs to me, how is anyone else better off?

Locke’s self-ownership argument

• “every man has a property in his own person”, which therefore means that one’s labour belongs to them

• if you mix your labour with an object, you mix something of yourself into the object, therefore the object belongs to you

• if someone took my property away from me, they would be alienating me from myself, which is unjust

if you were to mix your labour into something but not create a final product that benefits everyone, would that final product still be your property?

• yes and no

• Locke mixes his two arguments

• if you mix your labour into something, you also need to make something that is of value in order to own it

• also can’t gain ownership because you can’t let things go to waste

problems with self-ownership argument

• how do you determine whether something has value or not?

• if you dump a piece of your property in the ocean, does that little spot in the ocean belong to you now?

limits to ownership in the state of nature

• spoliation: can only use so much as any one man can make use of without it spoiling/going to waste

  • nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy

• “as much and as good”

  • individuals can claim property from the common natural world through the consequentialist and self-ownership justifications, but only to the point where there is “enough, and as good, left in common for others”

bypassing spoliation and its implications

• can bypass spoliation by trading perishable items for non-perishables

• this is the origin of money, the ultimate non-perishable

• by consenting to the use of money, we have passively consented to inequalities

• so, people enter into the social contract already have accepted the use of money (and therefore inequalities)

• inequalities in private ownership are justifiable because we have consented to them through the use of money

express or explicit consent

• a direct written or verbal agreement to be governed

• e.g.: a person swearing an oath, signing a contract or otherwise expressly declaring their agreement to become a member of political society

• this was the ideal for Locke, but he recognized the most people don’t explicitly consent to government, creating a piratical problem for how everyone is bound to obey the government

tacit consent

• consent that is inferred from one’s actions rather than a direct statement

• by using laws, roads or other benefits of society (even living on land on owning property), an individual gives their silent consent to being subject to the government’s laws

• Locke sees this as the solution to the practical problem with explicit consent

  • if an individual is enjoying the benefits of political society, they have silently consented to being under the government’s authority

how does Locke see rebellion?

• if you push people they will rebel

• we have not only a right but an obligation to rebel because God wants us to flourish

• if sovereign is not allowing us to thrive and flourish, as god would have wanted, we are obliged to rebel

trust and fiduciary relationships for Locke

• to hold something in trust for someone is a fiduciary relationship

• god gave property to humans to “use well by their exertions”

• e.g. the subjects are given to the sovereign under a fiduciary relationship by God

• if a sovereign violates the trust, they must be taken down to ensure well-being of people, as desired by god

• government as a fiduciary trust: purpose of government is to look after well-being of the governed

  • the actions of governors are limited to this end, if they don’t adhere to these limitations, they are disobeying god, and the people must revolt

three things that are lacking in state of nature and can be achieved by entering into political society

• laws to which everyone is subject (rule of law)

• impartial judges (justice)

• law enforcement

how should law, justice and enforcement be limited?

• laws must be for the good of the people

• laws must be consistent and universally applicable

• no taxation without consent

• no unauthorized transfer of power

the right to rebel

• people will rebel anyways if they are being oppressed

• people will only rise up as a last resort, if they are being seriously and consistently mistreated because they don’t want to be thrown back into state of nature

• constitutionally enshrining right to rebel is actually a safety valve that will lessen the likelihood of rebellion

  • the best defence against rebellion is giving people the right to rebel