John Locke’s Political Philosophy: Natural Rights and Social Contract
Author’s Philosophy: The State of Nature
In his political theory, John Locke discusses the state of nature, a condition preceding consent to become part of a civil society. Locke argues that in the state of nature, men are free, equal, and independent, as opposed to theories of the divine origin of kings. Additionally, the state of nature is a state of liberty. Men are naturally subject to a mandatory universal moral law, and human reason is but a reflection of God and their relationship with men, who enjoy certain rights and powers.
The rights afforded by natural law concern equality, liberty, the right to self-preservation, and the right to have the means to survive. One should not harm another in his life. Locke gives special attention to property rights, the legitimate basis of which is labor. It is work, therefore, that takes something from the common ownership of all men and makes it the property of a single individual. He also understands private property as extending to money, thus emphasizing the mentality of the Whigs.
In Locke’s view, the law also guarantees individuals certain powers, which were concentrated in two areas in the state of nature: the power to legislate and the power to punish. The state of nature would end up imposing force.
The Social Contract
The disadvantages of the state of nature lead men to organize a civil society. Locke notes that the only legitimate basis for forming a civil community is the free and voluntary consent of individuals. The social contract appears to be a metaphor, also used by Hobbes and Rousseau, whose purpose is to show that the only valid basis of a society and a government is the consent of the individuals themselves. These theories are legitimate; they are not intended to offer an origin story of society.
When men associate to form a political community, they give up those powers that they had in the state of nature. Locke establishes the division of powers to avoid the concentration of power in the same hands. Legislative power, for Locke, is the supreme power, and the others derive from it. Only the people are above it. Its objective is to develop the law and punish its infraction. The executive is responsible for the implementation of the laws.
For the election of a government, once the civil community is constituted, the majority moves to the formation of government through a compact between the monarch and the citizens. The citizen’s relationship with the government, according to Locke, is more of a mandate than a covenant. When discussing the dissolution of government, Locke indicates that it can be dissolved by the dissolution of civil society, either by external or internal attack.
Criticisms of Absolute Monarchy
Locke’s political philosophy is directed against absolute monarchy. In the First Treatise, he tries to refute the divine origin of kings, but in the Second Treatise, he criticizes absolute monarchy by trying to overthrow Hobbes’ theory of the social contract. Locke separates himself from Hobbes, laying the theoretical foundations of rebellion. For Hobbes, this is impossible to happen, as it would entail the dissolution of the original pact of society. Since the contract is the only one, Locke says that the contract is double, and revolt is possible if the government is no longer legitimate.
Another form of criticism is that Locke considers the absolute monarch and his subjects to be in a state of nature since they are equal and there is no difference between them. Therefore, everyone can defend their rights against those who do not respect them. In Locke, theory and practice are united. His politics is the power of facts. His theory is strengthened by the Enlightenment, and his contractarian theories culminate with Rousseau. He is known as the father of liberalism for his defense against absolutism.