Locke essay (0)

ACCESS ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET
Student Name: Alex Callaghan – EC1305063
Course : Access to Humanities
Tutor : John Gordon
Assessment Title: Critically evaluate Locke ’s theory of limited government
Number of Words 1616
NOTE : The ESSAY should be 1500 words in length .
Student signature - Alex Callaghan
Date - 24/04/2014
Critically evaluate Locke’s theory of limited government
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom . For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws , where there is no law there is no freedom. John Locke
Although John Locke is not the progenitor of social contract theory and is not by any means the last philosopher to wrestle with this concept , his views on fiduciary power , majority consent and limited government have been instrumental in western political thought from the time of the publication of his Two treatises of government to the present day. Locke’s writings refute the notions both of the divine right of kings and absolute government by arguing that peoples ’ destiny should be determined by majority will. In Locke’s view this can only be achieved by what he defines as limited government, an overarching framework which allows the people to amend or even dissolve a legislature if it is perceived to break the trust placed in it by the majority.
In order to understand the emergence of societies and the concept of limited government it is useful first to explore Locke’s hypothetical scenario of what it was like before these existed. Locke claims man lived in a state of nature and that each individual was born equal into a …state of perfect freedom to order their actions … Locke ( 1821 , p. 189). Within a state of nature Locke proposes that men were originally their own lawmakers and judges, acting upon and within their own systems of belief. At a minimal level this meant that man did not have a right to take either his own life or impede on that of another in terms of their life, liberty or property as these were all the workmanship of one omnipotent Locke (1821, p. 191) and the only way taking a life might be justified was if someone threatened one’s liberty. Locke’s state of nature is far removed from how Hobbes (1981, pp. 56-57) describes it as being a state of war in which man is in perpetual fear and his life being …solitary, poor, nasty , brutish and short.
However, it seems that Locke is quick to revert from his stance of a state of nature being a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance, and preservation Locke (1821, p. 202) and it becomes apparent that there is in fact an overlap with Hobbes account . As there is no temporal or divine authority to protect ones property in a state of nature enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others Locke (1821, p. 295)
Locke asserts that once a man combines his own labour with material from a state of nature, he has a natural right to it as he has removed it from its original state. Lock gives an account of man tacitly consenting to gold and silver pertaining value and even though this opinion has not been expressly voiced, acceptance of an …unequal possession of the earth… was established and now …man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of… Locke (1821, p.229). It can be argued this claim is indeed false as it could only be the case that the minority which first had gold and silver consented to this commodification, leaving many with little alternative but to acquiesce. It should be noted here that Locke was part of a cohort of privilege, belonging to the Royal Society, and throughout his career he held prominent Governmental positions . It could be said that Locke’s work is an attempt at moral justification for an elite bourgeois class defending its own sectional interests.
Locke argues that the precarious existence, inimical to a state of nature, is what leads to the emergence of civic and political society. The unspoken driver for this is the need to provide a semblance of security , not for the majority, but for the protection of property and resources accumulated by an emergent bourgeoisie. For this to happen Locke asserts that man must transcend from an individual state of perfect freedom in order to become a member of a unified, civil society.
This creates a one body politic and it must act in favour of the majority will as it is the apparent final arbiter in how political power is exercised. Man must renounce certain natural liberties but in return for this concession he will receive protection from the government or sovereign body. This process , in Locke’s view, is only achievable through the development of a consensus where everyone agrees to abide by majority rule , which a government or sovereign body then enacts. In Locke’s view simply being in the confines of a society implies tacit consent, meaning it becomes mandatory to adhere to the law. Locke’s claim can be argued to be both logical and valid , but when put under scrutiny it does not hold as much weight as some would claim. It cannot be assumed that functional locationism automatically conveys consent, Hume (1960, p. 234) gives a clear analogy encapsulating this point
…can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country , when he knows no foreign language , and lives , from day to day by the small wages which he acquires…
Locke refers to this tacit or overt expression of consent as a binding fiduciary compact as it is contingent on the sovereign body to ensure its commitment to protect individual life, liberty and property is upheld. Superficially, the concept of a fiduciary compact appears both fair and pragmatic, however it could be argued that as only a certain minority of people are allowed to take part in the voting process, the concept of majority will is rendered meaningless. As the fiduciary agreement is at the core of Locke’s argument for legitimising government, it becomes apparent that it can only address certain interests, inevitably lead to further inequality. For example Marx and Engels (1978, p. 15) argue that the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.
Locke’s prerogative is that absolute government of the kind advocated by Hobbes is unjust because it is not in the interest or will of the majority and can easily lead to tyranny. Locke’s theory of limited government is more progressive, as opposed to Hobbes account, as it is the majority will that is the supreme power, but it is important to ask who the majority is as this remains a valid question.
Around the time of Locke’s major works only certain groups within British society were allowed to take part in the democratic process, these were male landowners and men who could afford to rent property over a certain rateable value. During the 18th century, the House of Commons did not come close to representing the actual distribution of the population and wealth across the country. The system was synonymous with corruption and bribery and according to Thompson (1963, pp. 888 - 901) the “rotten boroughs” such as Gatton in Surrey had only seven voters and returned two members of parliament . The franchise was only available to an elite group, clearly illustrating that the majority were excluded and unable to give their consent to parliament process.
To consider Locke’s theory of limited government in a contemporary setting , it can be definitely accepted that there is a larger electorate within the United Kingdom, for example. At the same time it can be argued that there is little to differentiate between the mainstream political parties as they have all adopted neo-liberal ideology to a greater or lesser extent. According to the journalist and film maker John Pilger (2010)
This is not to say that parliamentary politics is meaningless. It has one meaning now; the replacement of democracy with a business plan for every human activity , every dream , every decency, every hope , every child born…
It could be stated that a common thread runs through the narrative of limited government, this being the illusion of choice and equal distribution of power between the government and the governed. Noam Chomsky (1998, p. 43) argues that the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
In the United Kingdom the electoral system works on a first past the post basis in which there are only two main parties that are going to come out on top. Although this appears to be a functioning democracy, this is simply another grand narrative that large sections of the public have become apathetic or seemingly abeyant. Two clear examples that have highlighted the weakness of the limited government paradigm and have ultimately lead to the disillusionment of many within this society. The first is the decision to invade Iraq on the grounds of unproven evidence , in spite of the huge public opposition. Secondly is the scandal over MP’s expenses claims as it was legitimate for politicians to make invoices for things such as claiming for second homes in order to maximise personal profits. This gave out a clear message that it was one rule for the public and an entirely different set of more lenient ones for the members’ of parliament or as David Peace (2004, p. 164) asserts one rule for us, no rules for them .
Overall limited government looks nice on paper but as with the social contract there is no evidence on paper or anywhere else that proves the majority has ever been able to remove a government through consensus unless it has come down to revolution and the inevitable class struggle that comes with it.
References
Locke, J. (1821) Two treatises of government. Oxford and London: Whitmore and Finn and C. Brown
Hobbes, T. ( 1651 ) Leviathan. 2nd edn. London: Penguin Books .
Barker, E. (1960) Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume and Rousseau . Oxford: Oxford University Press
Marx, K and Engels, F (1978) Mark – Engels Reader 2nd edn. London: Norton and Company
Thompson, E.P (1963) The Making of the English Working Class. 2nd edn. London: Penguin Books
Pilger, J. (2010) ‘Stand and Fight , The Party Game is Over ’, The New Statesman, (11) pp. 128
Chomskey, N. and Barsamian, D. (1998) The Common Good. London: Pluto Press
Peace, D. (2004) GB84. London: Faber and Faber
8