Locke’s Political Theory

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Civil Governance
Opinion on Civil War
Slavery
Ownership of Property
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

According to Locke, man has not been bestowed with any authority to dominate his offspring or the world, and if at all he does, then the offspring do not have a right to such dominion. According to this theory, there is no natural law or a low from God that determines the rightful successor of such authority and dominion and even if it was there, it could be lost by now. He therefore holds the view that world rulers should not enjoy such privileges and those who rule with force, violence and anarchy should be replaced.

Political power should be geared towards ensuring the wellbeing of the people. Laws are therefore supposed to be enacted with the offenders having to face the consequences whether it is the death penalty or other penalties so as to ensure the safety of others. This is supposed to punish him and be a warning to other criminals.

Civil Governance

The theory stipulates that equality should be paramount and power and jurisdiction should be reciprocal with no subordination or subjection. This is because all people are born in this natural world using the same faculties. Under such equality, people should show each other love and derive the principles of charity and justice. Locke observes that a person can only receive as much love as he/she gives.

If one is an offender then he/she should not expect any love in return but a measure of the harm the person will have caused others. This is evident in these words from section 5: “how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless I be careful to satisfy the like desire.” The liberty that people have is not a license for a person to do as he/she wants with his/her life or those under him.

One is for instance forbidden from taking his/her own life or mishandling those under him/her as one cannot claim to own another person as though the person was property.This can be found in section 63. One is not allowed to kill another person unless it is under the administration of justice as it is in the case of capital punishment. This is because everyone is under the rule of the omnipresent God who is the only one with the ability to determine how long a person should live.

The theory has often been perceives as falling short of full democracy as it allows capital punishment hence denying the offender the right to life. The offender if given a chance to reform is likely to change for the better yet killing such a person might not do any good to him/her at all.

The theory allows a person to revenge incase he/she is offended so as to restrain the occurrence of such an offence. This is likely to cause anarchy as multiple revenges might only lead to fully fledged war between the different parties hence increasing the anarchy that it claims should be prevented. This might in the long run be a hindrance to other people’s democratic rights.

According to section 9, Locke has a view that it is inappropriate for judges or law enforcers in another country to execute punishment to foreigner since everyone has an equal right to execute such punishment. This shows weakness in this theory because democracy would imply that someone who commits an offence anywhere should be judged righteously by any law enforcers or judges under any jurisdiction.

In the cases where the mechanisms for proper judgment are not in place, then the person could be judged in places where such mechanisms have been enacted. If this is not done then the offender is likely to be punished more or less than he/she deserves. The theory seems to advocate for people to take the law into their own hands as evident in section 7 which might not necessarily end up in justice being done.

Under the circumstances of the offended trying to revenge or get reparation for his/her property, it is likely that the accused might not be heard and he/she is not likely to get justice. This might particularly be fatal in the case of mistaken identity or false accusation as the truth might only come out after the damage is caused.

The nature of punishment administered for some offences might only instill fear among others but not allow them to use the power of reason. Under such circumstances, a minor offender is likely to be punished by death which will instill fear among other people and not allow them to reason as to how such a small offence should be punished.

Such a form of a justice system is likely to be characterized by favoritism and anarchy. The same offence committed by two different people, one being a friend and the other an enemy is likely to receive different punishments.

Opinion on Civil War

The theory advocates for revenge whenever one is offended. The offended has the right to cause as much harm as he/she perceives right to the offender. An offender is perceived as having gone beyond the natural law hence he should be treated as any other creature or animal. This ends up denying the offender basic human rights including the right to life. The democratic rights of the offender are basically denied. The theory therefore seems to curtail democracy.

According to the theory, anyone who attempts to impose rule on others is perceived to be in a state of war with the subjects and should therefore be opposed in an attempt to prevent the person from imposing rules on the subordinates who have the same rights as he/she has. Locke for instance makes this statement, “From all which it follows, the government of a conqueror, imposed by force on the subdued, against whom he had no right of war, or who joined not in the war against him, where he had right has no has no obligation upon them.

The offended person therefore has a right to fight and if possible kill the offender. This might not however be the best option as the law enforces of local administrations might be perceived as imposing their rules on the common people and this is likely to cause a bloody uprising hence curtailing the rule of law and democracy.

He perceives war as someone’s response to an act of oppression hence the need to act in self defense. In the event of a war, one is obliged to fight until the opponent gives in, asks for reconciliation and accepts to pay for any damages done. On the other hand, the use of violence by the authority is perceived as an act of war although the victims might be unable to appeal or seek justice from other avenues hence the need to wait upon divine intervention.

Slavery

According to the theory, man is not obliged to live under any legislation apart from the natural law. Any legislation is likely to be perceived as an imposition hence the need to rebel against it. In full democracy however, people are obliged to live under some form of legislation though remaining open minded to debate on those laws that curtail their freedoms, do away with them, amend or enact new laws that encompass such freedoms. It is therefore important for the theory to emphasis the need for being under some legislation so as to ensure that the rule of law is observed.

Locke observes that a person needs to be free from absolute arbitrary power. Slavery is perceived as a state of war between the slave and the master as the master imposes his/her rule to the slave. If it were in the case of full democracy, people would be educated on the disadvantages of carrying out slavery and compelled to abhor the practice. The theory therefore needs to be open to other options such as negotiations and education rather than resorting to the law of ‘an eye for an eye,’ which might only aggravate a problem.

Ownership of Property

Locke holds the view that as much as the earth and everything therein was given to be under the dominion of man so as to support him in his endeavors, no one is more privileged than the other to own property without appropriation. One can not claim to own property that another person has worked for just by virtue of it being given to man by God. One has to invest in whatever property that is there so as enjoy the ownership. One must put his/her labor or effort so as to remove property from being of the common state to his/her ownership.

Someone who has collected figs from a fig tree in the field is for instance entitled to the ownership of those figs as he/she has put labor into the collection of the figs. A person who tills land and plants crops on it has the right to the produce as he/she has put labor in it hence removing it from the state of being public property. Someone else should not therefore use force to snatch it from him/her.

As much as God gave land to man in its natural state, it never implied that it could remain uncultivated hence keeping its natural state. According to the theory, everyone is allowed to gather as much as he/she needs but taking something in excess at the expense of others is not appropriate. One is for instance allowed to gather as many fruits from the wild as possible although the person needs to gather as much as needed and not at the expense of others.

Whenever labor is put on land, the land is more valuable than what which stays idle. Locke has observed that the invention of money resulted in rightful owners of land/property being displace or their property being taken away from them as some communities had not bought into the idea of money.

According to section 36, the theory stipulates that hoarding something that would otherwise benefit others is just equivalent to theft. One is for instance not expected to keep substances that are perishable in plenty until some expire in his/her possession. This notion can however be used to restrict people from working hard to make savings for the future.

In a full democracy, people are allowed to own property without much restriction provided they acquire the property legally. In the event that someone obtains something in plenty and it becomes stale, the person is not held responsible for those who lack the same. Someone has a right to acquire as much as he/she can, provided this is done legally.

The person can not be branded as a thief in such a case. To become a full democracy, the theory should not restrict the ownership of anything provided the thing is acquired legally. The fact that other people might be lacking while others have in plenty does not necessarily qualify those who have to be branded as thieves. The others might as well be lacking due to their own laziness.

The theory seems to prejudice the aspects of luxurious living for instance the idea of others owning gold and expensive jewelry while others lack. This is however not the case with full democracy. If one happens to be rich or purchases expensive wear then it is up to him/her.

It is up to a person to decide what to use for his/her possession without the interference of the third party. Branding such a person as a thief is undemocratic. In full democracy, people need to have the freedom to use their property as per their decision without interference from other quarters as long as the use does not interfere with the democratic rights of others.

Locke seems to be against the idea of people storing up wealth in terms of money as this deprives others from benefitting from the resources as evident in section 37. Such a person is perceived to be hoarding as he/she is the only one who can benefit. One is for instance not supposed to own huge tracks of land or own more property more than his/her family would need. The writer wonders why a person would own huge tracks of land for instance at an enclosed place or island.

He perceives this as an act of hoarding or theft. This perception is likely to discourage people from making huge investment. One can only be compelled to work up to the level of satisfaction of his/her family. In full democracy however, a person is allowed to make as much investment as possible as long as the person does everything legally.

Storing up wealth in form of money is not restricted as others have an equal chance to do the same. People should therefore be allowed to make investment beyond their basic family needs as that is the only way that new inventions and new solutions to the existing problems can be found.

Locke seems to be opposed to the idea of putting much value to gold and silver. According to the theory, the basic necessities of man like food and shelter are of fur much value than silver and gold and should therefore be perceived as being of greater value than silver and gold. He perceives the invention of money a conspiracy by a few people to unequally divide the earth’s wealth. According to the theory, governments and authorities use money so as to impose their unjust rules and regulate the ownership of property.

In a full democracy however, money is not perceived as any conspiracy to divide wealth unequally, in fact, it is just a medium for making trade easier. Full democracy stipulates that people are the ones who have a say in governance and they have a right to express their opinion concerning the governance and formulation as well as enactment of laws and the government is not allowed to use any unjust means to regulate the ownership of property.

The theory should put into consideration people’s rights to own properties if at all democratic principles are to be upheld. A person should be allowed to make grater investments, save for the future and do exploits without having to be limited to the basic human needs. If that is done legally then the person cannot be condemned on that basis.

Conclusion

In a full democracy, everyone has an equal right in making decisions or arguing out issues that might influence his/her life. A criminal is therefore allowed to give his/her views and even present witnesses in court so as to ensure that justice prevails and there is no bias in the ruling. In Locke’s theory however, the offended has a right to carry out revenge against the accused without necessarily having to go through the due process of justice.

The offended has the ability to administer justice as he/she sees fit. This can only be a recipe for injustice, bias and anarchy. For democratic principles to be upheld, both sides must be given a chance to give their views concerning a particular case and defend their respective stands.

According to Locke, a government that is oppressive should be eliminated if possible forcibly. In a full democracy however, a person or regime that is oppressive should be replaced democratically for instance through vote or impeachment. Locke seems to downplay the authority that the judiciary has in the administration of justice.

Judges are for instance perceived as having the same authority and power to administer justice as anyone else and a person could administer such justice without the need to go through the whole judicial process. This is evident in these statement; But everyman is judge for himself, as in all other cases.In a full democracy however, a person is expected to respect the judicial process and is not allowed to take the law into his/her own hands and administer punishment or penalty to the offender.

Locke therefore needs to accept the power and authority bestowed to the law enforcers as judgment administered in such a case is more comprehensive and objective than in the case where a person takes the law in his/her own hands.

The fact that Locke advocates for much power being given to an individual can easy destroy a democracy. In a real democracy, the law enforcers must be given a chance to carry out their work without interference from other people. The leaders should be guided by the constitution and the rule of law should be upheld by both the governors and the governed.

Everyone has to abide by the constitution and no one is supposed to act out of his own emotions or stereotypes concerning the issues of justice. People need to have the freedom to own property without any interference as long as the whole process is done legally. Instead of taking the law into their own hands, they should elect a few people to be their representatives in matters of governance and justice.

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Oregon: Oregon State University, 2005. Print

Click Here To Order Now!