VIII (Of the Beginning of Political Societies) - So once men come together, giving up the autonomy they enjoy in the state of nature, the society must function as a whole. The only way this works is for all to aquiesce to the decisions of the majority-- resistance on the part of any minority means they are asserting their own decisions in the place of the whole, which by definition is the breakdown of the society. This instability cannot possibly last for long.
Objections. First, it might be said that we have no evidence for men coming together, mutually agreeing to cede authority to the group. Is this all simply myth or fantasy? Answer: it's not surprising that early societies have no records of this action, but it simply must have taken place. Most of our societies are so long-lasting that the moment of origin is long in the past. And in fact, we do have evidence of just these kinds of decisions-- breakaway groups that strike out on their own.
Next: But these societies commonly are ruled by a monarch. Doesn't this work against your argument? Answer: Not at all. It's entirely plausible that early societies would grant final authority in an individual deemed wise. It's entirely unsurprising that they would allow authority to carry through the wise family-- everything's easier that way. What we do see, though, is interruption of the hereditary line when things get beyond the patience of the society-- exactly what I've been saying. Improvements to the design of the system can come incrementally. When they do, they come through the consent of the majority.
Finally: But what actually happens is men grow up in a society, and feel bound to that society, right? Where's the moment of rational consent? Answer: Not surprising that most stay in the society with which they are familiar. That society often confers many advantages that a man would not want to forego. But always, the decision to stay is an act of will; the society has no power to compel participation and residence. The society only has authority over those who grant it authority; a return to the state of nature is always an option, and is often taken, to no penalty from the society that is left behind.
IX (Of the Ends of Political Society and Government) - So why would a man give up the state of nature for a more restricted life? In a word, security. First, security in his private property; second, security in neutral and impartial judgment; third, security that the execution of justice will actually be completed.
Man possesses two great powers in the state of nature. The first is the right to set his own course of action in all things. The second is to exact valid force over those who interfere with his liberty. The first he cedes to the legislature in a society; the second he cedes to the executive.
------------------------
Not much documentation of the creation of a new civil society, eh? Wait a hundred years or so, John.
Key note: Locke repeatedly refers to the fundamental rights of man as life, liberty and property. Ultimately, this means that econonomic freedom is of the same importance as political freedom. How did the New Deal Supreme Court screw that up so badly? To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment