Although I do not agree with John Locke on all points, he was and remains an important and respectable political thinker. Here is a reflection on some of the innovations he offered political thought, with some slightly radical secondary analysis by myself.
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke radically redefines the rights and freedom of the common man. However, some of the more radical sentiments of Locke’s philosophy seem opaque; hidden by a geniality intended to soften the blows delivered to Locke’s contemporary audience, or conversely, lost on modern readers who have lived in a society which has reaped the freedoms of his principles for hundreds of years. In either case, this work will attempt to prove the stated thesis; that Locke radically redefined the rights and freedom of man- primarily through a reconstruction of his arguments (in Ch. 2-4 Second Treatise), and through minor, relevant side analysis.
“Freedom, being the foundation of the rest...”
We first must understand what freedom means to John Locke. Locke opens the second chapter of the Second Treatise with a direct definition of freedom. According to Locke, men are naturally in a “...State of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without...depending upon any other man (Ch.2, P4).” This is to say that naturally, man is free to do anything he wishes with himself or his property, outside of killing oneself, and that man MUST be self reliant to be free. Self reliance is crucial, for as Locke will argue, to live reliant upon the will of any other man is indeed slavery (more detail on this to come). Man may not destroy himself because of the responsibilities Locke assigns to freedom. Man has a responsibility to rationality, reason, self reliance and to self preservation. When it does not conflict with his own needs, man should assist to “preserve the rest of mankind (Ch.2 P6).” Man has a responsibility to not harm another man unless to do justice to another who would harm the life, liberty, or property of another man- in this case, man has a responsibility to administer justice. Locke’s ideal of freedom gives the individual much more personal freedom than any thinker of the past, but it imbues upon the individual the cost of constant vigilance in preservation of self.
In order to explain how man is naturally free, Locke creates what today’s social scientists might call an ideal typology: The State of Nature, and The State of War. These states are ideal in that no one actually lives through a perfect version of the state of nature (or war) as Locke writes, but that these states are examples used to illustrate Locke’s argument.
First, Locke’s State of Nature- To Locke man is in a natural state of perfect freedom (as described above) and equality. Freedom to do as he pleases (within natural bounds) and equality, “All power and jurisdiction being reciprocal, no one having more than another (Ch.2 P4)...” Freedom is clearly of fundamental importance to Locke in the state of nature- We must be free to do as we wish in nature, equality as Locke sees it merely explains man’s relation to one another. This state of nature is one of self reliance, natural personal sovereignty, and freedom- in stark contrast to arguments that one man had a natural right of dominion over all others. This State of nature completely refutes the notion of the divine right of monarchs.
The State of War then, as Locke sees it arrises of the inconveniences of the State of Nature, and as a result of clashes of self interest. To Locke, reason must be our guide in behaving in the state of nature- reason is in fact, the Law of Nature. Reason dictates that man must act to preserve himself, and any man who’s actions hinder another’s abilities to preserve oneself acts against reason, and puts himself “in a state of war (Ch.3 P16).” An aggressor in this state of war may attempt to steal from, harm, or kill another man, to which Locke would say it is “lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can...(Ch.3 P18).” To this extent, Locke has set up the most rudimentary form of crime and punishment- the right to defend and protect oneself from an aggressor by any means deemed appropriate and necessary.
Perhaps the worst aggression against a man in the State of Nature, according to Locke however, would be one who attempts to put himself into absolute power over another man. To Locke, any man who would attempt to gain absolute power over another would surely enslave him, and dispose of his life at his leisure, and has declared war. To Locke, this man must be killed- he is a deadly enemy of freedom, the most essential tool of self preservation. This ideal was so radical for its time when applied to the current state of society- it calls for complete intolerance of those who would take your freedom, it calls into question the entire proposition of monarchy. Some might even argue that it calls upon free men to kill the king! (Although not quite as radical as quasi-contemporary Denis Diderot “Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest”, this is truly revolutionary thinking.) John Locke calls upon men to be ready to kill for their freedom.
“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation that he cannot part with it...No body can give more power than he has himself; and he cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it (Ch.4 p23).” Although Locke references slavery with this passage, it seems clear that this argument was made to further obliterate the notion of divine sovereignty, and to emphasize the incredible importance of self reliance and personal liberty. Because we must naturally preserve ourselves, it follows that we must never allow ourselves to be enslaved, to lose our natural freedom would be akin to death. So much so, that Locke seems to make an exception to his suicide taboo: “For whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, ‘tis in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires (Ch.4 P23 emphasis mine).” One could say that “master” in this passage is code for “king,” and that Locke is calling for revolution; for even if it failed, man would die attempting to preserve or regain, his freedom.
Throughout the rest of the Treatise, Locke explains the necessity of property rights, parental duty and responsibility, and the ordination of civil government and law. Importantly, Locke defines legitimate political power in very limited scope- Law and government’s sole functions according to Locke are to secure the rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect those freedoms from those who would act without reason and endanger that liberty. However, without the revolutionary, reasoned notions of self interest, self preservation, and liberty, we wouldn’t be able to discuss Locke’s ideal government. For as Locke said, it is “Freedom, being the foundation for the rest...” Without Freedom, there is nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment