Introduction
This post aims to summarize the prestigious publication of John Locke, “The Second Treatise of Civil Government Analysis”. The work is known for fleshing out Locke’s theory of inalienable rights. It is also famous for influencing the Declaration of Independence.
Summary
Preface
Locke aims to justify the ruling of King William and rebut the ideas of Sir Robert Filmer. Here, the intention of John Locke is to endorse a constitutional monarchy and reject an absolute monarchy.
Chapter 1: Of Political Power
Chapter 1 begins with a rebuttal to Sir Robert Filmer. Adam was not granted absolute power from God, and Adam’s heirs are unclear. There is no absolute sovereignty given by God. Different types of power must not be confused. Political power allows governments to make laws for the protection of property. The laws must be helping the people.
Chapter 2: Of the State of Nature
Locke introduces an iconic phrase, “state of nature” to explain political power. It is an equal state with no regulations. However, there are rules in nature, meaning that people cannot harm others even in this state. We can see that these laws exist since people are punished in foreign countries, even when they are not ruled by foreign kings. In this state, individuals can confer the punishment they wish, insofar as it is proportionate to the crime committed. People break out of this state when they join a political agreement.
Chapter 3: Of the State of War
War is a destructive state of enmity and destruction, where people aim to kill each other. The law of self-preservation is a part of the law of the state of nature. That allows people to defend themselves. This is because an attempt to attack is an infringement of freedom. Salient here is that the state of nature and the state of war are different. The former has people living in harmony, with an agreed-upon power. In the latter, people with force their power onto others, and a common authority will not exist. In a state of war, the attacked side has the right to war.
War in Society and war in Nature are different. The first option ends when attacks cease. The second ends when peace and reparations are offered. Until the war in Nature ends, the attacked party has the right to destroy the attacking party. Without intervention from authority, war cannot end. In fact, they are overriding the laws of nature. A major reason why people enter society is to avoid war.
Chapter 4: Of Slavery
The state of natural liberty is a state where people can live only under the laws of nature. The state of social liberty is a state where people can live only under the laws created by the commonwealth. In this case, the commonwealth must be consented by the people and do good for the people.
Slavery is unjust as it goes against the liberty of people, allowing an unjust power to take it. It can not be surrendered even if that is wanted.
Chapter 5: Of Property
The earth is the property of everybody. This is because of natural reason and the suggestion of the Bible. It leaves a question of how we can define individual property.
I own myself. I own my labor. I can gain foreign objects to be my property by using my labor to appropriate them. This does not require the consent of others. For example, if I pick an apple, that apple becomes mine because I have mixed my labor by picking it up.
This is only true insofar as I appropriate to an extent that I can use without wasting the objects I have claimed. If I pick up too many apples, and they rot, those apples are not my property. For land, I can take as much as I can cultivate and develop by other means. I cannot take it to a level where I would be wasting it. Labor is a good tool to make the world useful for people.
This is why money is created. Even with lots of production, by exchanging goods, waste of the goods is prevented. To make the standard of exchange clear, money is used.
Chapter 6: Of Paternal Power
Minors do not have freedom because they are born without reason, the tool used in both the state of nature and society. Parental power exists until the child gains reason, which Locke uses at the age of 21 as an example. After that age, people get freedom and responsibilities.
Locke rejects the notion that monarchial power can be justified for the same reason parental power is. Parental power does not equal political power.
Chapter 7: Of Political or Civil Society
Locke first describes the first society, that is the conjugal society. He differentiates it from political society. In a conjugal society, a mistress or master holds power. However, it is not absolute since they cannot control life or death, and it is not political.
A civil society is a united body of individuals under the power of an executive that protects their property and well-being, making legislation to govern the behavior of people. Under public support, the commonwealth has the legislative power to make laws and the executive power to enforce them. We can differentiate paternal power and political power in a civil society here. Paternal power holds authority from birth to adulthood. Political power in a civil society is contingent on these conditions.
Locke finds the problem of monarchies here. Power is centered around one individual at the expense of others. Monarchy does not protect property and does not aim to increase welfare, since monarchs do not feel retribution. People lack the comfort, protection, and incentive to help the commonwealth. For the distribution of power, legislative and executive power should be collective.
Chapter 8: Of the Beginning of Political Societies
The majority must hold power in a civil society. An individual agrees to sacrifice some rights for the majority when entering civil society and keeps laws.
The objection raised here is that society is often not governed by a majority, and instead governed by another force. Locke concedes to that but refutes it by saying the origins of society are based on consent.
Another objection is that governments are not truly chosen, but instead enforced. Locke rebuts this by saying that it is a free choice. A person can choose a certain government, but their children can choose another one. A commonwealth is only a commonwealth when it is under consent.
Chapter 9: Of the Ends of Political Societies and Government
People enter society and give up their natural freedom for the protection of their property. Here, by property, Locke means life, liberties, and estate.
Nature lacks three things: “an established, settled, known law”; “a known and indifferent judge”; and the “power to back and support the sentence”. People submit to their natural rights, as the rights of society are stricter than those in the state of nature. They also give up the right to personal retribution, leaving it to society. This is true when three things are kept: a law, a judge, and an executive working “to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people”.
Chapter 10: Of Forms of a Commonwealth
The majority can choose the form of commonwealth. They can choose a democracy, which gives the people legislative power. They can choose an oligarchy, which gives selective people legislative power. They can choose a monarchy, which gives one person legislative power. The monarch can be hereditary or elected. Legislative power is a standard to classify forms of commonwealth since it is the supreme power of the civil state. Commonwealth is a society that exists for the good of all, and it is not necessarily a democracy.
Chapter 11: Of the Extent of the Legislative Power
The law must aim for the preservation of people. People may not challenge the legislative body or make laws on their own. There are cases where the majority can. People must follow laws. There are some limits: they must be equal; they must be fixed “promulgated established laws”; they must be designed for the good of people; they must not be laws that raise property tax without consent.
Locke mentions concerns about long-term office holders. They might make laws in their own interest and not for the people. Locke, however, believes that they still should be kept in power since it was consented to by the majority.
Chapter 12: Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth
Laws do not need to constantly change. In fact, if it does, that may lead to abuse of the law. The executive must always be active because laws must always be enforced. Therefore, legislative power and executive power should be separated.
Locke discusses the international character of the civil state. The states are in a state of nature with respect to other states. The nature that governs them is a federative power. They are often conjoined with executive power.
Chapter 13: Of Subordination of the Powers of the Commonwealth
Power does not come from the state, it comes from the community. Legislation can be removed or altered by the people.
Legislature still stands supreme. Even in a monarchy where the monarch has supreme executive power, they cannot challenge legislation.
Executive power over the legislature does not mean it controls the legislature. When the executive stops necessary intervention of the legislature, that is an act of war against the people, since they have the right to the protection and work of the legislative body. The power of executive branches only exists because the legislature cannot always meet.
The executive can alter the number of representatives when population changes or other incidents occur. They must promote fair and equal representation in the legislative and remedy disorders in the legislative.
Chapter 14: Of Prerogative
Not in all situations can the legislative make laws to solve conflicts. In these cases, the executive can exercise executive prerogative, in other words, “good judgment”. This is for the good of the commonwealth.
Ruling in paternal societies was based on executive prerogative. Locke corrects a possible misunderstanding: all laws indeed stem from executive prerogative, but it does not exist for the executive to make laws for themselves. It is only for the common good of people.
A good leader can easily use prerogative power since it will get support. Problems arise when a bad leader rises. That would be taking away the rights of people. A judge does not intervene when a bad leader abuses an executive prerogative. Rather, it is the collective action of people that does.
Chapter 15: Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power of the Commonwealth, Considered Together
There are three powers Locke classifies: paternal power, political power, and despotic power. Paternal is the power of parents over children until they gain reason. This power does not allow parents to take away property. Political power is the consented power of people that protects property. Despotic power is an absolute, arbitrary power to take property. Parental power is given by nature, political power is given by consent, and despotic power is given unjustifiably.
Chapter 16: Of Conquest
Unjust conquerors do not have the right to control the conquered. Lawful conquest allows the people that the conqueror conquered to benefit, rather than be harmed.
When one party has started an unjust attack on another, the attacked party has the right to conquer. It should be noted that this right only extends to the government, not the people. It would only be justified for the people to be conquered under the condition that the people actively supported the war. It should also be noted that when one party attacks another, that is putting the party in a state of war.
The conqueror then can only seize the right to life of the people, not the estate. The conqueror does not have the entire right of property of the aggressor because in a lot of cases, the survival of the aggressor’s family depends on the property that the aggressor has. If the conqueror claims the estate of the aggressor, they can turn into an unjust aggressor.
Chapter 17: Of Usurpation
Usurpation here can be understood as a change of leadership domestically. The usurper does not gain power until the people support them.
Chapter 18: Of Tyranny
Locke defines tyranny as “the exercise of power beyond right.” Any form of government that does not abide by the laws or does not function for the benefit of the people can be considered a tyranny. Locke gives some reasons why not to jump to disobedience of the government: sanctity of the executive; faith that law would prevent the necessity of force; and the fear that a small group cannot successfully overthrow the government.
Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government
Locke explains how a new government can be formed. This is when the state struggles to function for the people. Specifically, this can look like a tyrannical power changing the legislative, when the legislative or executive breaches trust, and when the executive ignores their duties.
Locke believes a new civil state can be formed in these cases. Locke replied to the possible concerns. Some may say too many rebellions can happen. Locke rebuts this by saying that people do not change their customs easily; people only aim for change when they are miserable; and people only change when it is evident that the executive is not functioning well. It also means that legislative change would be involved in the process of the state being formed, rather than forced. Locke emphasizes, that since this is just a process, it should not be feared and that it is necessary.
An important part of this chapter is that Locke does not argue divine power is the justified motivation for dissolution of governments. Rather, it is the people judging whether they are being protected.
Thoughts
Locke really seems to be ahead of his time, because most of his theories seem correct to me, almost downright obvious.
I especially agree with the points about the rights of property of people, the common good of the people, what a commonwealth should be like, and how a dissolution of governments may happen. These are now commonly accepted theories in contemporary society, with Locke being an influential figure in the spread of them.
One criticism that can be raised is the method of appropriation of property. It might make sense if every human is born with the same starting point, each having equal talents, all aiming for the seizure of property. However, even in this case, the problem of conflicts during the process of appropriation arises. The bigger problem might be that people are born with different starting points, different inheritances, and different talents. Lots of land, and when we talk about today, all the land is already taken. It is therefore unjust to say everybody has an equal chance of taking the estate. It also raises the question if this is relevant at all, as all land is already taken, and this quest to find who can take land at the starting point is meaningless. I have mixed feelings about this theory.