An Overview of John Locke: The Foundation of Liberalism?
John Locke was an influential English philosopher and physicist best known for his theories about natural law and the social contract. He was born in a period of legislative disorganization in which King Charles I obtained absolute power by succession. As the second Stuart King of Great Britain, Charles was a devout follower of Anglicanism willing to suppress protestant activism. Moreover, he disbanded parliament and the Petition of Right, consistently increasing taxation. The money collected from these taxes was used to fund various endeavors with minimal public support. He waged costly wars and unjustifiably jailed political adversaries. These spontaneous increases in impractical expenditure led citizens to question the bureaucratic system as a whole, doubting the idea that an individual should have absolute sovereignty over the state.
As a result, Protestantism, which had already been quickly growing as the printing press became a readily accessible tool, suddenly became a viable alternative to Catholicism. Protestants, who were commonly members of lower socioeconomic classes, stood not only as religious disciples, but also as a protest to the traditional Catholic hierarchy. They supported democratic ideals and believed in the universal Rule of Law. ‘Protestantism’ became a word used to describe any opposition to the conventional hierarchy. As such, counter-revolutionaries attempted to quell these radicalist movements through the use of force. By nature, a civil war erupted just ten years after Locke’s birth, having a profound impact on his life. Soon after, in 1689, he published “Two Treatises of Government,” an influential text that proposed notions regarding the role of government with respect to the rights of the individual. Undoubtedly, this was Locke’s most influential work because it offered theories contrasting what was commonly accepted at the time. By analyzing “Two Treatises of Government,” this essay will examine the role that John Locke played in shaping the enlightenment as well as the impact that Locke’s ideas have had on modern-day society.
Locke promoted the concept of ‘natural rights,’ suggesting that humans have certain innate liberties. The book was published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby Parliament gained more legislative authority while the patriarchal hierarchy began to erode. Soon after, a Bill of Rights was established, declaring “the Rights and Liberties of the Subject.” (bill of rights). In essence, the act proposed the concept of self determination. This newfound impression of individualism led citizens to question what a government’s purpose is. If the individual is their own sovereign, what is a government’s fundamental purpose? Given the context of the Glorious Revolution, the purpose of the book was to elucidate the rudimentary function of government. At the time, the common conception, as suggested by earlier philosophers than Locke including Thomas Hobbes, was that the state’s primary objective is to protect its people. The notion of government was a system in which individual freedom is collectively sacrificed for the benefit of state protection. For example, we pay taxes to the government in exchange for essential services, like roads and schools, that benefit us all. Even while taxation is a troublesome burden for many of us, we comply in any case because we recognize that we are unable to provide for ourselves to the extent that a cumulative state can.
For centuries, this notion of government was acceptable because a world in which the government provided for us was thought to be better than the alternative. That said, Locke asked us to consider what exactly a state of nature, the alternative to a governmental society, would look like. He stated that “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (two treatises gov]. Opposing popular belief at the time, Locke proposed that a hypothetical world in which societal guidelines do not exist would be harmonious. His argument is that every human being is born with a certain rationality, being able to independently think about the consequences of an action. Because we recognize that we as humans are all equally powerful, there exists a mutually assured destruction that deters us from harming each other. In other words, we understand that pain is an inherently negative sensation with negative consequences. Locke argued that the government’s role is to preserve natural rights, imitating a state of nature. One might argue that this argument is flawed because it implies that the government has no purpose and thus should not exist. However, Locke noted that the state of nature is imperfect because power is too evenly distributed. If every individual is regarded equally, no legislation can be established because a single difference in opinion would exempt individuals from the law. In addition, the state of nature lacks an impartial third party to settle disputes between individuals. If somebody were to act irrationally in a manner that harms someone else, there would be no individual of higher authority to declare a fair verdict. Effectively, Locke suggests that some level of imbalance in power is necessary for society to function. For example, the English Parliament, an institution supported by John Locke, has more practical jurisdiction than citizens, but these citizens are functionally in control of parliament and can choose to elect different members at any time. A government can ensure that the natural rights of citizens are protected in a sensible manner, whereas only a utopian state of nature could do the same.
However, the government can only serve its purpose when it is recognized by each of its citizens, which is inconceivable in almost any functional society. Based on Locke’s view of the purpose of government, an individual who chooses to not conform to a government is not subject to the rule of the state. In essence, this would mean that a government only has sovereignty over those who desire to be subjects. Undoubtedly, this would be problematic from a legislative standpoint; laws would only apply to certain individuals while others would be exempt, creating a state of anarchy. Locke proposed a solution to this, stating that “every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government” (two treatises gov). While every citizen has not officially declared their compliance to a government, there exists an implicit agreement that validates the government. An individual cannot use a good or service of the government without providing something in exchange. This means that we submit to the government simply by using any governmental good or service. Importantly, this includes the land of a state, meaning that everybody on any land is subject to the laws of that state. This interpretation of the ‘social contract' organized the framework for modern-day policies including birthright citizenship. In addition, the idea that we are subject to the laws of the nation we are in is a principle that international law is based on today.
In opposition to Locke’s argument, one might contend that ‘implicit consent’ is an unfair way to validate a government. The basis of this claim is that, because a sizable amount of governments originally came to power through the use of force and violence, Locke’s social contract theory is invalid. If an individual is placed under duress, it is unjust to say that they have given consent to be governed. This argument forces us to question whether or not force and recognition are mutually exclusive. If so, Locke’s initial argument would be flawed as it relies on the idea that government is created by the consent of the people. However, he proclaimed that a government that the subjects do not acknowledge should be considered illegitimate. In other words, a government that was formed by force but still satisfies its purpose by maintaining the state of nature is rightful. Even if most modern-day governments were once illegitimate, they still exist because they are presently fulfilling their role. While Locke did argue that everybody implicitly conforms to a government, he did not believe that we should be perpetually adhered to the government that we elect. The will of the people can change, meaning that a government that was once considered illegitimate can now be considered legitimate if it is accepted by the people. A government is only going to stay in power if it is doing its duty and imitating the state of nature. No matter how much force a government may use on its subjects, Locke believed that the fundamental desires of the majority of the population will always overcome that of the government. For this reason, an illegitimate government fuels legitimate revolution, which Locke supposed is justified under the circumstance that the government breaks the “law of nature”. In essence, he argued that revolution comes naturally when the state of nature has been disrupted. However, Locke was not the first to suggest that revolution is warranted. Francois Hotman and George Buchanan, philosophers who supported popular sovereignty as an alternative to traditional monarchy, had proposed the same concept nearly a century before he did [stanford].
While Locke’s theories were influential, they were not entirely original. For example, Locke’s conception of “natural law” had no clear distinction from Aristotle’s “natural justice” other than a lack of influence by divine law . Thomas Aquinas also published his definition of natural law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good” in the thirteenth century [CRF]. Moreover, originality can also be noticed in Locke’s ideas about the state of nature and the role of government. These similarities between Locke’s work and others beg the question: why did Locke’s ideas prove to be uniquely influential as opposed to fundamentally parallel ones from Aquinas on Aristotle?
Lois Schwoerer argued that “Lockean ideas–ideas that correspond to what he published anonymously or wrote in private papers–played a part in the [Glorious] Revolution” [upenn]. Many scholars, including Schwoerer, argue that it was Locke’s work that inspired the Glorious Revolution. Yet, this justification of Locke’s prominence is factually incorrect. “Two Treatises of Government '' was published in 1689, the year after the Glorious Revolution, indicating that the revolution would have started regardless of Locke’s publication. Given this information, one might think that Locke’s theories, inspired by the work of others, were uninfluential. However, Locke uniquely collected formerly independent ‘liberal’ ideas and compiled them together while analyzing the relationship between them. For example, popular sovereignty and the state of nature were both established as conceptual ideas prior to Locke's article. However, he stated that the purpose of democracy is to replicate the state of nature’s balance of power. The seemingly negligible interrelatedness of these ideas was what distinguished Locke’s ideas from that of others.
After the civil war, the English population shifted towards an egalitarian view of governance in which parliament limited the power of the ruler appointed by lineage and granted more freedoms to the individual. The war demonstrated the will of the people to experience greater autonomy far before Loce’s publication. Thus, the movement towards liberalism began before Locke’s publication, but revolutionists needed an explicit justification for their actions. As corroborated by Alexander Mosely, Locke’s treatises were used “to justify rebellion when the magistrate oversteps certain boundaries,” minimizing much of the skepticism behind the revolution [IEP]. It is erroneous to argue that John Locke invented the idea of liberalism. Nonetheless, he was recognized as a prominent figure in the revolution because he elementally articulated the idea of liberalism.
In addition, Locke published his work at the same time that liberalist movements were happening in other parts of the world. Series of events that had a profound effect on the political landscape of Europe including the Dutch Golden Age, Scottish Enlightenment, and the English Civil Wars happened not long before Locke’s publication. Consequently, the social milieu of the time was vastly reciprocative to Locke’s work. In contrast with Aristotle and Acquinas, Locke published at the start of the Enlightenment, a period of political and philosophical discourse in which people were accepting of all untraditional ideas [BL]. Had he published earlier, his work would likely not have had as substantial of an influence. Even in the modern-day, embodiment of Locke’s articulation of liberalism can be observed across multiple realms. One noteworthy instance of this is through natural law: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cites Locke’s belief of the inalienable right to “life, liberty, and property” as the central dogma of universal law [crf]. Overall, John Locke’s credit as ‘the father of liberalism’
Bibliography
Bill of Rights. (1688). Bill of Rights [1688] - legislation.gov.uk. Chapter 2 1 Will and Mar Sess 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/data.pdf
Buchanan, A., & Motchoulski, A. (2023, January 20). Revolution. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/revolution/#:~:text=Hobbes%20(1651)%2C%20explicitly%20denied,harm%20against%20her%20was%20imminent.
Burgess, G. (1992). The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/574219
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2001). The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights. CRF-USA. https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html#:~:text=Locke%20wrote%20that%20all%20individuals,%2C%20liberty%2C%20and%20property.%22
D’Olimpio, L. (2019, August 20). Big thinker: Who was John Locke?. The Ethics Centre. https://ethics.org.au/big-thinker-john-locke/
Locke, J., & Hay, R. (n.d.). Two Treatises of Government. York University. https://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf
Mosely, A. (n.d.). John Locke: Political Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Schwoerer, L. G. (1990). Locke, Lockean Ideas, and the Glorious Revolution. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709645
Shellens, M. S. (1959, January 1). Aristotle on Natural Law. Natural Law Forum. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=nd_naturallaw_forum#:~:text=Since%20it%20is%20never%20advisable,term%20itself%20is%20rarely%20used.
St. Thomas Aquinas Natural Law and the common good. Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2006). https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-22-4-c-st-thomas-aquinas-natural-law-and-the-common-good#:~:text=Aquinas%20wrote%20most%20extensively%20about,This%20is%20natural%20law.
Uzgalis, W. (2022, July 7). John Locke. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#TwoTreaGove
White, M. (2018, June 21). The Enlightenment. Discovering Literature: Restoration & 18th century. https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/the-enlightenment#:~:text=The%20Enlightenment%20%E2%80%93%20the%20great%20%27Age,the%20Napoleonic%20Wars%20in%201815.