Locke Flashcards
Ch.1: Of political power
Summary of first discourse- arguments against Filmer.
Definition of political power, ref. Aristotle
“POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good”
Ch.2: Of the State of Nature
Defn of our natural state (perfect freedom — within the bounds — without asking). People with the same nature and faculties should be equal in power, unless God says otherwise.
Natural law (though this be a state of liberty, yet […]). prescriptions- to avoid harm to others or their property, to preserve one’s own life, and to preserve others when it doesn’t endanger oneself. Religious premise (workmanship). Extent of right to punishment
any two people who have not agreed together to enter into one political community will be in the state of nature with regards to one another.
L agrees with Hooker that ‘we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men uniting themselves as first in politic societies’, but still believes that all men are naturally in an SN until they consent to living in a society.
Ch.3: Of the state of war
“one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion”
This occurs when another tries to gain absolute power over one- to enslave one. Case of a thief (liberty — everything else).
[Objection]
Ch.4: Of slavery
Natural liberty (having only the NL for one’s rule) vs liberty in society (having only the rule of laws established by consent)
He that has no right to take away his own life cannot give another power over it- as with slavery
Ch.5: Of Property
God gave the earth to everyone in common, but people may nevertheless acquire some property rights without the consent of others.
One must appropriate objects as property before they can be of any use.
Every man has a “property” in his own person-> mixing labour.
Spoilage principle- God didn’t give man anything to spoil or destroy
Acquiring land- enough and as good- no one could be injured where they weren’t prejudiced (river) - that which is left common by compact
introduction of money introduced larger possessions, to the original state of abundance
90 or even 99% of the products of the earth are from labour
Consent gave rise to money as a rare enduring possession- this allowed inequality
Ch.6: Of Paternal Power
‘Paternal power’ is misleading, because the mother ought to have an equal title to whatever power exists over the children (they contributed concurrently to create them)
Though all men are born equal, age or virtue may give some precedence- similarly with birth, alliance, and the like. He meant equality as equal right to natural freedom.
Children aren’t born with natural freedom; parents retain some jurisdiction as ‘swaddling clothes’.
Law exists to preserve and enlarge freedom, for where there is no law there is no freedom. Thus the point at which we can become free of our parents’ law is the point at which we are supposed capable of knowing that law and abiding by it.
This doesn’t suggest absolute obedience. There is a duty not to injure or affront or disturb the happiness of one’s parents, a duty created by parents’ education of their child, a duty if one wants to receive one’s inheritance (which continues past minority).
Ch.7: Of political or civil society
God made man to be with others, and so “ put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination, to drive him into society”.
It first arose between man and wife, then parents and children, then master and servant. None of these are political.
Marriage is a contract, and so severable according to natural right or the contract itself.
Political society exists where members have quit their natural power to judge and punish trespasses and resigned it to the community, in the cases where the law is supposed to protect them. The setting up of a judge distinguishes political society from the SN.
No judge could be found in a monarch, who is supposed to have power in himself alone. [Contra Leviathan], the people would have no security against such a ruler, and will be in the SN wrt him.
Ch.8: Of the beginning of political societies
“Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent”
People give up power to the majority, unless they expressly agreed to a supermajority. They thus make that community one body, and do so by barely agreeing to unite into one society.
Objections: that no one really agrees to set up a govt in this way, and that men are already obligated to their own govts so aren’t of liberty to begin a new one. Contra 1: ‘govt is everywhere antecedent to records’. Contra 2: one can’t be born into subordination, nor bind one’s children or posterity by contract. And many people can withdraw authority from rulers.
Express and tacit consent. One gives tacit consent to follow the law by “barely travelling freely on the highway”. One who lives quietly within a society and enjoys its privileges and protection would be obliged to obey the laws, but only by express consent could one actually enter into society.
One can’t enter into society without also surrendering one’s possessions, for it is the purpose of society to secure and regulate property.
Ch.9: Of the ends of political society and government
One quits one’s freedom in the SN because the enjoyment of it was uncertain.
The conditions for preserving property in society include a settled, known, and consented-to law, a known and indifferent judge, and structures to punish offenders and obtain reparations.
Ch.10: Of the forms of a commonwealth
Those entering a commonwealth can choose to be governed by a majority, oligarchy, or monarchy. the majority always has the power to change types of govt.
legislative power is the supreme power in a civil state
Ch.11: Of the extent of the legislative power
The first rule of leg power is the preservation of the society. It must create laws that apply equally to everyone, they must be designed only for the good of the people, and taxes must not be raised without the people’s consent.
The legislation does not have the power to transfer its power–it cannot give the right to make laws to anyone else
It mustn’t be put into a position where it can govern for its own benefit
Ch.12: Of the legislative, executive, and federative power of the commonwealth
One doesn’t need a constant legislature that’s always making new laws. But the exec must always be active, since the laws must always be enforced.
For this practical reason, and other theoretical ones discussed later, the exec and leg should be separated.
IR are governed by NL, since states are in the SN wrt one another
Notion of the separation of powers- L is concerned not to give any single governmental body too much power. He wouldn’t want power-holders to have different interests to the governed as a result
Ch.13: Of the subordination of the powers of the commonwealth
While the leg is subordinate to the majority, it is the supreme element within the govt.
The exec, in safeguarding the legislature, has a certain amount of necessary power over it. But if the executive impedes the meeting and acting of the legislative when it is required, this constitutes an act of war against the people
Ch.14: Of prerogative
in any civil society, situations will arise that have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to provide laws for them. In these instances, the executive may exercise executive prerogative, or simply “good judgment.”
Encroachments can only be made on the public good, not on executive privilege or rights–the executive only has power inasmuch as the people invest in it.
A good leader will be tacitly allowed a large amount of prerogative by his people if his judgments tend to benefit everyone. Thus, Locke notes that “the reigns of good princes have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people.”
So, who judges when a leader has overstepped his prerogative? When the people come into conflict with some part of their government, no judge presides. Instead, the people can and must invoke “that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind . . . whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven”
Ch.15: Of paternal, political, and despotical power
Summary of the distinction from previously in the book: nature gives parents paternal power, consent yields political power to the commonwealth, and forfeiture (unwillingly) gives a tyrant despotical power over his subjects.
