XVIII (Of Tyranny) - When those placed in positions of power use their authority to enrich themselves rather than directing their actions to the good of the people, that is tyranny. It can be opposed, but make sure only to oppose by force actual injustice. Things to watch out for: take care not to tear down an entire edifice of government, which might be saved, over the actions of a single bad actor; try to work through the law and the still-functioning parts of government to take down a tyrant; don't make things worse for everybody by invoking force. But in extreme situations, bold action is indeed needed. So...
XIX (Of the Dissolution of Government) - The actual dissolution of government does not necessarilly entail the dissolution of society. It's possible, in the case of war, that the destruction be so complete that the remaining men are reduced to wandering or making their way by joining new societies. But more often the dissolution of a government structure is actually the act of a functioning society, a society that maintains its identity and unity through the transition and into the future government to whom they give their revised consent.
Dissolution of government happens when the legislature is unable or unwilling to fulfill its duties; or when the executive absolutely refuses to be subservient to the legislature, and thereby does injustice to the people at large.
In such rare circumstances, when legal remedies within the existing government won't rectify the situation, rebellion is necessary. It is not to be taken lightly. It is in all cases a perillous position to be in. It represents, in essence, a state of war between the people and those to whom they granted authority. Often, we call those rebels to task for their actions-- but that rebellion is a two-way street. It is equally legitimate to call the leaders rebellious who have exceeded their mandates, or forgotton their duties, or lost sight of the good of the people with which they have been entrusted. In this state of war, when legitimately established, there is no supreme side with power over the subservient other; both parties are placed on an equal footing. And in the end, it is always up to the judgment of the people as a whole which side will prevail, and on which principles the government will reestablish its footing going forward.
---------------------------
So don't play around with accusations of tyranny. It's serious business.
Glad I read all this. I don't think it hurt that I forced myself to read it so quickly. There's a lot of background assumptions and principles it was good for me to see laid out so carefully. I'm sure most of the political readings and writings I do will refer back to these principles, if only implicitly. I do think Locke has a good, solid insight into human nature and how that informs political relationships. (But I would say that.)
Showing posts with label Locke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Locke. Show all posts
Monday, May 09, 2011
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XVI - XVII
XVI (Of Conquest) - It is thought that the role of government is to wage war and conquer neighboring lands. This is not so. For starters, a government that conquers a people can never set up a legitimate ruling legislator, for they would surely act without the consent of the newly governed.
But in the case of a nation that wins a war lawfully against an aggressor, what are the obligations? The conquerer gains no more authority over his own people than before-- no aggrandizement allowed. Over the conquered people, he has no authority if they did not participate nor acquiesce in the aggression-- an illegal war perpetrated by leaders can't be assumed to be through the consent of the people. It is true that the conquerer has a right to property to repair the injustice done to him. But this right does not extend to depriving women and children of the property they inherit from their-- even their wicked-- husbands and fathers. In these cases the men never had the power to risk their wives' and children's property to begin with, so it cannot be forfeited.
The conquerer does not have the right to impose a new system of government without the consent of the people, either. It is true that they must impose some restrictions, to ensure justice for their own injury. But this imposition has no force on the children in that nation, who retain the natural right to establish, through their own consent, their own system of government upon coming of age. To prevent this is its own injustice.
XVII (Of Usurpation) - Domestic usurpation of governmental authority is simply conquest writ small. If the usurper try to also change the form of government, we can add tyranny to his crimes. This is because, in consenting to the government, implicit in that consent is the people's right to determine which members of society will wield the power they have ceded. Any actions taken by a usurper do not have the force of law, until that time as the usurper actually wins the consent of the people.
------------------------
How does this discussion of the laws of conquest inform the Israel-Palestine situation? Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank unlawful because the new generation of Palestinians has the right to self-determined government? Or are they still acting against the previous generation of aggressors? How does the continued strife, if perpetuated by the rising generation, affect Israel's obligations to them?
Sudden question: Was Woodrow Wilson' wife a usurper? Was Elanor Roosevelt? Or do these circumstances fall under the "prerogative" exception retained by the executive? (But how does a non-executive invoke prerogative power?)
But in the case of a nation that wins a war lawfully against an aggressor, what are the obligations? The conquerer gains no more authority over his own people than before-- no aggrandizement allowed. Over the conquered people, he has no authority if they did not participate nor acquiesce in the aggression-- an illegal war perpetrated by leaders can't be assumed to be through the consent of the people. It is true that the conquerer has a right to property to repair the injustice done to him. But this right does not extend to depriving women and children of the property they inherit from their-- even their wicked-- husbands and fathers. In these cases the men never had the power to risk their wives' and children's property to begin with, so it cannot be forfeited.
The conquerer does not have the right to impose a new system of government without the consent of the people, either. It is true that they must impose some restrictions, to ensure justice for their own injury. But this imposition has no force on the children in that nation, who retain the natural right to establish, through their own consent, their own system of government upon coming of age. To prevent this is its own injustice.
XVII (Of Usurpation) - Domestic usurpation of governmental authority is simply conquest writ small. If the usurper try to also change the form of government, we can add tyranny to his crimes. This is because, in consenting to the government, implicit in that consent is the people's right to determine which members of society will wield the power they have ceded. Any actions taken by a usurper do not have the force of law, until that time as the usurper actually wins the consent of the people.
------------------------
How does this discussion of the laws of conquest inform the Israel-Palestine situation? Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank unlawful because the new generation of Palestinians has the right to self-determined government? Or are they still acting against the previous generation of aggressors? How does the continued strife, if perpetuated by the rising generation, affect Israel's obligations to them?
Sudden question: Was Woodrow Wilson' wife a usurper? Was Elanor Roosevelt? Or do these circumstances fall under the "prerogative" exception retained by the executive? (But how does a non-executive invoke prerogative power?)
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XIII - XV
XIII (Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Commonwealth) - The legislature has the highest power in the commonwealth. But if it happens that they abuse their power, the people have the right to dissolve the government, for the people retain supreme power at all times.
The executive is in all ways subordinate to the legislature (excepting those cases where the executive has a hand in crafting legislation), for he can do nothing but what the laws of the legislature direct. The executive does have the power, however, to administer and direct the selections of new legislative bodies from time to time, or on a fixed schedule. In this role he is acting directly as a representative of the people, who naturally retain this power.
It is important to make sure the makeup of the legislature is flexible enough to adapt to changing popluations and demographics.
XIV (Of Prerogative) - At times, it is necessary for the executive to invent law on the fly, or even to violate the laws on the books, with a mind to preserving the fundamental Natural law. There is nothing illegitimate about this, for it is possible and even likely that the legitimate written laws will, in certain unforeseen circumstances, lead to a greater harm to the community. In fact, early governments probably operated under these circumstances most of the time.
As a protection against abuse, however, the legislature always has a power to check, through new laws, the decisions the executive has made through his prerogative. Also, the people retain the right to check the executive's overreach.
The biggest danger for abuse is when a subsequent executive uses the previous executive's prerogative as a model for overall governance. The whole point of prerogative is that it is not a rule-- it is invoked only to address immediate circumstance.
There is no body that can rightly and purely decide between the legislature and executive in these cases. Life goes on. What recourse do the citizens ultimately have against what they perceive as an abuse of prerogative? All the aforementioned procedures and checks. But in the meantime, pray. [Seriously.]
XV (Of Paternal, Political and Despotical Power, Considered Together) - Recap.
-------------------------
Locke is suggesting that the rules of good government are not nearly as fixed as some would hope them to be. Real governing occurs in the gaps between the established rules, and depends on the wisdom and rational judgment of all the actors and participants involved. And so his vision of government depends on trusting that every man is rational, and could at all times fend for himself, only choosing not to out of a perceived benefit of ceding that power. It's very optimistic.
The executive is in all ways subordinate to the legislature (excepting those cases where the executive has a hand in crafting legislation), for he can do nothing but what the laws of the legislature direct. The executive does have the power, however, to administer and direct the selections of new legislative bodies from time to time, or on a fixed schedule. In this role he is acting directly as a representative of the people, who naturally retain this power.
It is important to make sure the makeup of the legislature is flexible enough to adapt to changing popluations and demographics.
XIV (Of Prerogative) - At times, it is necessary for the executive to invent law on the fly, or even to violate the laws on the books, with a mind to preserving the fundamental Natural law. There is nothing illegitimate about this, for it is possible and even likely that the legitimate written laws will, in certain unforeseen circumstances, lead to a greater harm to the community. In fact, early governments probably operated under these circumstances most of the time.
As a protection against abuse, however, the legislature always has a power to check, through new laws, the decisions the executive has made through his prerogative. Also, the people retain the right to check the executive's overreach.
The biggest danger for abuse is when a subsequent executive uses the previous executive's prerogative as a model for overall governance. The whole point of prerogative is that it is not a rule-- it is invoked only to address immediate circumstance.
There is no body that can rightly and purely decide between the legislature and executive in these cases. Life goes on. What recourse do the citizens ultimately have against what they perceive as an abuse of prerogative? All the aforementioned procedures and checks. But in the meantime, pray. [Seriously.]
XV (Of Paternal, Political and Despotical Power, Considered Together) - Recap.
-------------------------
Locke is suggesting that the rules of good government are not nearly as fixed as some would hope them to be. Real governing occurs in the gaps between the established rules, and depends on the wisdom and rational judgment of all the actors and participants involved. And so his vision of government depends on trusting that every man is rational, and could at all times fend for himself, only choosing not to out of a perceived benefit of ceding that power. It's very optimistic.
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, X - XII
X (Of the Forms of a Commonwealth) - The community can choose to design a pure democracy, an oligarchy, a hereditary or elective monarchy, or mix and match these pieces at will. The most important element in the design of a commonwealth is the form of the legislature, which ultimately gives the commonwealth its character.
XI (Of the Extent of the Legislative Power) - The power of the legislature is not unlimited. Indeed, it has precisely those limits that each man in the state of nature was limited to unto himself. That man had no authority to compel the life or property of any other. Nor does the legislature have the authority to seize the property of any citizen without his due consent. (Otherwise, how could a legislature of such power have earned the consent of that citizen to begin with?)
The laws emanating from the legislature must be written and clear, never arbitrary.
How important is this limitation? Even in the case where a superior military officer does have the authority to risk the life of his subordinate, he does not have the authority to compel his subordinate's money or other property. So there.
To that end, it is better to design a legislature so as to prevent long-serving members from thinking themselves as having the power over the estates of the remainder of the citizenry. This is especially a danger when that legislator believes himself to doing so for the improved good of the community-- in fact, this is the ultimate danger of any commonwealth. It is always illegitimate, for it directly deprives the citizens of the nature rights they would have possessed under the state of nature, which are inalienable, no matter the good intent.
Of course, it is necessary for there to be a power of taxation. But it must always occur through the consent of the taxed. Period.
It is also illegitimate for the legislators to cede any ounce of legislative power to any other person or body-- for this is not the original agreement of the members of society, and deprives them of their original rights.
XII (The Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth) - The legislature need not continually meet-- in fact, it's better if it doesn't. It only needs to quickly write the law, then return to live among the citizenry under that same law. Therefore, it is important that the same body not actually administer the law. Instead, the continually operating part of the government is the executive.
A third function of government is the regulation of affairs with other societies-- called the "federative" powers. The state of affairs between separate commonwealths is not unlike the state of nature between individual men. Accordingly, these affairs cannot always be administered under previously established rules; more flexibility is required, often instant flexibility. In practice, it is very likely that the federative powers will be wielded by the same exective as administers domestic affairs.
-------------------------
OK, but what kind of consent is needed for the legislature to legitimately take the property of the citizens through taxation? The process ought to be spelled out in as much detail as is feasible-- probably nothing else in the design of government is as important.
XI (Of the Extent of the Legislative Power) - The power of the legislature is not unlimited. Indeed, it has precisely those limits that each man in the state of nature was limited to unto himself. That man had no authority to compel the life or property of any other. Nor does the legislature have the authority to seize the property of any citizen without his due consent. (Otherwise, how could a legislature of such power have earned the consent of that citizen to begin with?)
The laws emanating from the legislature must be written and clear, never arbitrary.
How important is this limitation? Even in the case where a superior military officer does have the authority to risk the life of his subordinate, he does not have the authority to compel his subordinate's money or other property. So there.
To that end, it is better to design a legislature so as to prevent long-serving members from thinking themselves as having the power over the estates of the remainder of the citizenry. This is especially a danger when that legislator believes himself to doing so for the improved good of the community-- in fact, this is the ultimate danger of any commonwealth. It is always illegitimate, for it directly deprives the citizens of the nature rights they would have possessed under the state of nature, which are inalienable, no matter the good intent.
Of course, it is necessary for there to be a power of taxation. But it must always occur through the consent of the taxed. Period.
It is also illegitimate for the legislators to cede any ounce of legislative power to any other person or body-- for this is not the original agreement of the members of society, and deprives them of their original rights.
XII (The Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth) - The legislature need not continually meet-- in fact, it's better if it doesn't. It only needs to quickly write the law, then return to live among the citizenry under that same law. Therefore, it is important that the same body not actually administer the law. Instead, the continually operating part of the government is the executive.
A third function of government is the regulation of affairs with other societies-- called the "federative" powers. The state of affairs between separate commonwealths is not unlike the state of nature between individual men. Accordingly, these affairs cannot always be administered under previously established rules; more flexibility is required, often instant flexibility. In practice, it is very likely that the federative powers will be wielded by the same exective as administers domestic affairs.
-------------------------
OK, but what kind of consent is needed for the legislature to legitimately take the property of the citizens through taxation? The process ought to be spelled out in as much detail as is feasible-- probably nothing else in the design of government is as important.
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, VIII - IX
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...
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...
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, VI - VII
VI (Of Paternal Power) - It is the duty of parents-- both mother and father-- to raise, care for, and teach their children, who are unable to comport themselves with the civil laws and the law of reason while they have still not reached the age of reason. Until that time, the parents must show what it is to act within the bounds of rules by setting up rules for their children. It is the duty of children, upon reaching adulthood, to continue to honore their parents, but this does not mean they are duty-bound to continue to follow their parents' directives. After grown children are able to live according to their own reason, parents can no longer legitimately exercise that kind of restraint.
The authority parents have over their children is not a model for the authority monarchs could have over their subjects. So don't even go there.
VII (Of Political or Civil Society) - Marriage for life developed in mankind because each child born to a woman arrived before the previous had grown old enough and rational enough to care for himself. Since the duty of the father to each child continued over long stretches of time, it was important that the mother and father of each child be tied to one another for the duration.
Civil, or political, society comes into being when each citizen gives up the right he has within the state of Nature to exact punishment for crimes. When all instead cede this power to a governing authority, the better to avoid poor or extreme application of the law of Nature, those men have established a real society. Note that a monarchy government is incompatible with this definition, for it allows a single man, the monarch, to continue to possess the same powers over life and death that all possessed within the state of Nature. And one more point about that: if other men witness the monarch exercising that right, it is likely they will conclude that the right can be exercised against the monarch as well-- even if only for self-preservation-- and we're right back to the state of Nature anyway.
The authority parents have over their children is not a model for the authority monarchs could have over their subjects. So don't even go there.
VII (Of Political or Civil Society) - Marriage for life developed in mankind because each child born to a woman arrived before the previous had grown old enough and rational enough to care for himself. Since the duty of the father to each child continued over long stretches of time, it was important that the mother and father of each child be tied to one another for the duration.
Civil, or political, society comes into being when each citizen gives up the right he has within the state of Nature to exact punishment for crimes. When all instead cede this power to a governing authority, the better to avoid poor or extreme application of the law of Nature, those men have established a real society. Note that a monarchy government is incompatible with this definition, for it allows a single man, the monarch, to continue to possess the same powers over life and death that all possessed within the state of Nature. And one more point about that: if other men witness the monarch exercising that right, it is likely they will conclude that the right can be exercised against the monarch as well-- even if only for self-preservation-- and we're right back to the state of Nature anyway.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, V
V (Of Property) - A right to self-preservation means an automatic right to the things necessary for self-preservation: food and shelter, at least. But where does the concept of "property" come in?
First, we might consider the wild of Nature to be there for public consumption. But if anyone is actually to make use of, say, the fruit of a tree, he necessarily makes use of it to the exclusion of anyone else's use of it. Each man naturally has a property claim also on his own body, and so his own labor. And when his labor adjusts Nature for the purposes of satisfying his needs, he acquires property rights over that portion of Nature to which he applied himself. Simply put, the man who gathers acorns owns the acorns the moment he gathers them-- common law will get us this far (otherwise he would need the consent of everyone else before claiming possession over so simple a thing.)
These property rights are not unlimited, of course. A man has no right to possess that which he will not make use of, and so will subsequently go to waste.
OK, so what about land? Still simple: working the land confers possession. And there is plenty of land for each man to find his own parcel to work. The only exception is that land which has been preserved for public use by the legitimate public authority. "Subdue the earth and have dominion over it" are a cause and effect.
This could probably have worked forever-- there's plenty of land! Hell, just use America if it comes to that. But at some point, this natural development was interrupted by the use of money, to assign the possession of larger pieces of land to fewer people. This is entirely natural, the fruit of man's cleverness. Overall, it's a good thing. At this point, our civilization has developed to the point that 99% of the goods we get from nature are already infused with some kind of human labor to make them happen. Proof: look at how the native Americans live-- surrounded by as much land as they could care to use, but not living well on it. And look: we eat bread, not acorns; we wear silk, not skins. V.43:
We're watching the re-development of all this in America as we speak.
----------------------
I'm having ideological whiplash reading this against 21st century mores. Suck on this, luddites, eco-warriors, and Gaia worshipers.
Locke is clearly working off of a primitive labor theory of value. That's good as far as it goes, but without further development it devolves into a disastrous theory and wasteful make-work programs. But Locke doesn't consider the possibility of non-useful labor at all. In fact, such a thing could only happen after piggy-backing on an established system of money. Man, this stuff gets complicated in a hurry.
Love the quoted paragraph, a precursor to the "I, Pencil" essay I discovered sometime last year.
Locke's perspective of the American continent is fascinating.
First, we might consider the wild of Nature to be there for public consumption. But if anyone is actually to make use of, say, the fruit of a tree, he necessarily makes use of it to the exclusion of anyone else's use of it. Each man naturally has a property claim also on his own body, and so his own labor. And when his labor adjusts Nature for the purposes of satisfying his needs, he acquires property rights over that portion of Nature to which he applied himself. Simply put, the man who gathers acorns owns the acorns the moment he gathers them-- common law will get us this far (otherwise he would need the consent of everyone else before claiming possession over so simple a thing.)
These property rights are not unlimited, of course. A man has no right to possess that which he will not make use of, and so will subsequently go to waste.
OK, so what about land? Still simple: working the land confers possession. And there is plenty of land for each man to find his own parcel to work. The only exception is that land which has been preserved for public use by the legitimate public authority. "Subdue the earth and have dominion over it" are a cause and effect.
This could probably have worked forever-- there's plenty of land! Hell, just use America if it comes to that. But at some point, this natural development was interrupted by the use of money, to assign the possession of larger pieces of land to fewer people. This is entirely natural, the fruit of man's cleverness. Overall, it's a good thing. At this point, our civilization has developed to the point that 99% of the goods we get from nature are already infused with some kind of human labor to make them happen. Proof: look at how the native Americans live-- surrounded by as much land as they could care to use, but not living well on it. And look: we eat bread, not acorns; we wear silk, not skins. V.43:
It is labour, then, which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth anything; it is to that we owe the greatest part of all its useful products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of that acre of wheat, is more worth than the product of an acre of as good land which lies wasted is all the effect of labour. For it is not barely the ploughman's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil, and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat; the labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron and stones, who felled and framed the timber employed about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a vast number, requisite to this corn, from its sowing to its being made bread, must all be charged on the account of labour, and received as an effect of that; Nature and the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials as in themselves. It would be a strange catalogue of things that industry provided and made use of about every loaf of bread before it came to our use if we could trace them; iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dyeing-drugs, pitch, tar, masts, ropes and all the materials made use of by any of the workmen, to any part of the work, all which it would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon up.And the development of money, which made all this industry go, is easy enough to explain. A man who did gather more than he could use before it perished would be wise to trade away his surplus for something of a more permanent enjoyment-- even if that thing be a merely aesthetically appealing rock. Without the possibility of some item or object or material acting as the storage of value, such surplus would never happen-- for it would merely represent wasted effort and labor.
We're watching the re-development of all this in America as we speak.
----------------------
I'm having ideological whiplash reading this against 21st century mores. Suck on this, luddites, eco-warriors, and Gaia worshipers.
Locke is clearly working off of a primitive labor theory of value. That's good as far as it goes, but without further development it devolves into a disastrous theory and wasteful make-work programs. But Locke doesn't consider the possibility of non-useful labor at all. In fact, such a thing could only happen after piggy-backing on an established system of money. Man, this stuff gets complicated in a hurry.
Love the quoted paragraph, a precursor to the "I, Pencil" essay I discovered sometime last year.
Locke's perspective of the American continent is fascinating.
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, III - IV
III (Of the State of War) - When one is in a declared or open state of war with another, that other automatically has, through the natural right of self-preservation, the right to kill the first. It is known that he who is at war with me desires to capture or enslave (literally or otherwise) me. With that knowledge and expectation, I can do nothing else but try to prevent that from happening.
IV (Of Slavery) - Liberty in society consists in the freedom to act within the rules and laws established a legislative system that has the consent of the governed. Liberty is not the ability act according to one's own raw desires.
Man cannot enslave himself to another, for the same reason that he cannot give up his own life. [Because it's contrary to man's drive to self-preservation?] The most that can be done is that a man, legitimately punishable by death for a crime, could instead be enslaved by the injured party. Even in this scenario, the "slave" could despise this state and seek the death he deserves instead. Other situations that approach slavery should be viewed instead as labor compacts-- and the difference is, the "master" does not have absolute power at any time, and couldn't legitimately, say, kill him or otherwise interfere with his natural freedom at all. In fact, doing so would instantly break the compact.
--------------------------
Tons of stuff in here. Right off the bat, there's a response to extreme libertarianism. Freedom really is bounded by legitimate legislative authority. We'll see what the limits of that authority are though-- how do we preserve property rights, and curtail abortion right, through the same civil authority? (One answer: we elect lawmakers who follow through on such a plan. It's a huge problem that the courts interfere with legitimate lawmaking ability. Maybe. Hmm.)
Interesting anwer to advocates of assisted suicide here. According to Locke's view of our fundamental self-preserving nature, we don't have the authority to seek our own deaths. To do so violates our fundamental nature, without which... none of the other individual rights hold up, because there's nothing fundamental within ourselves that we would have to respect in any other. Even the sick owe it to the rest of society not to open that door. (It is not a fundamental part of our nature to be free from pain. But it is, naturally, a part of our nature to try to flee pain. Hmm.)
Completely unexpected discussion of the problems of slavery. From this brief chapter, it seems the violations of justice present in the American system of slavery were: a) the capture of African men and women from their homeland, and b) the claim of slaveowners of absolute power over their "property", which is impossible. The labor itself wasn't inherently an injustice (?). Hmm.
IV (Of Slavery) - Liberty in society consists in the freedom to act within the rules and laws established a legislative system that has the consent of the governed. Liberty is not the ability act according to one's own raw desires.
Man cannot enslave himself to another, for the same reason that he cannot give up his own life. [Because it's contrary to man's drive to self-preservation?] The most that can be done is that a man, legitimately punishable by death for a crime, could instead be enslaved by the injured party. Even in this scenario, the "slave" could despise this state and seek the death he deserves instead. Other situations that approach slavery should be viewed instead as labor compacts-- and the difference is, the "master" does not have absolute power at any time, and couldn't legitimately, say, kill him or otherwise interfere with his natural freedom at all. In fact, doing so would instantly break the compact.
--------------------------
Tons of stuff in here. Right off the bat, there's a response to extreme libertarianism. Freedom really is bounded by legitimate legislative authority. We'll see what the limits of that authority are though-- how do we preserve property rights, and curtail abortion right, through the same civil authority? (One answer: we elect lawmakers who follow through on such a plan. It's a huge problem that the courts interfere with legitimate lawmaking ability. Maybe. Hmm.)
Interesting anwer to advocates of assisted suicide here. According to Locke's view of our fundamental self-preserving nature, we don't have the authority to seek our own deaths. To do so violates our fundamental nature, without which... none of the other individual rights hold up, because there's nothing fundamental within ourselves that we would have to respect in any other. Even the sick owe it to the rest of society not to open that door. (It is not a fundamental part of our nature to be free from pain. But it is, naturally, a part of our nature to try to flee pain. Hmm.)
Completely unexpected discussion of the problems of slavery. From this brief chapter, it seems the violations of justice present in the American system of slavery were: a) the capture of African men and women from their homeland, and b) the claim of slaveowners of absolute power over their "property", which is impossible. The labor itself wasn't inherently an injustice (?). Hmm.
Second Treatise Of Civil Government, I - II
I - Even if the hereditary divine right of kings was initially established by God and imbued into Adam, in the intervening years we have lost complete grasp of how that line of succession should be followed. Hence, we must answer this question anyway: What does it mean for a figure to have authority over another, in many different contexts. In the specific case of political authority, it consists in the right to make laws, mete out punishment (up to and including lawful death), defending the population from foreign injury, and all done with an eye to the public good.
II (Of the State of Nature) - First, recognize that we possess freedom within the bounds of the Laws of Nature. Second, within that Law is each man's direction to self-preservation and thriving. Third, for the aforementioned reasons, men born into the same community are at the same station in life-- that of subordination to their Maker. Given all that, every man has the right to execute punishment on another who interferes with or disrupts his own Natural rights. II.6:
Contraposed to this universal right, there is also the individual right of the aggrieved to extract satisfaction from the wrongdoer or injurer. Some will say this is going too far, that placing this power within the individual opens the door to exaggeration of injury and improper punishment. Keep in mind we're discussing justice in the state of Nature-- of course in a mature government it would be good to move this power into formal courts and within the people at large. But then, how is that an argument for investing supreme power in a single individual monarch? If we are to design safeguards for the meting out of justice, we'd better do so more carefully than that.
--------------------------
Looks like the origin of what we call human rights really does depend upon human nature as infused in us by God, our Creator. And not entirely because every aspect of those rights is individually programmed into every human being-- that would be quite a trick to try to prove, working out the mechanics of God's creation of Man. Instead, Locke's point can be boiled down to a much simpler argument: it is our subordination under God that puts us all at essentially the same moral level, and it is from that perspective that we have the responsibility to ensure that no one can interfere with at least the basics of another's nature. It is only if we are not all born into an identical station under God that it would be possible that some are born to a higher station, and can claim for themselves authority and power over the others. Nietzche's Superman?
Don't forget though, at the moment, we're only talking about Man actually living in an undeveloped state of Nature. The consequences of all this may change as society is built.
II (Of the State of Nature) - First, recognize that we possess freedom within the bounds of the Laws of Nature. Second, within that Law is each man's direction to self-preservation and thriving. Third, for the aforementioned reasons, men born into the same community are at the same station in life-- that of subordination to their Maker. Given all that, every man has the right to execute punishment on another who interferes with or disrupts his own Natural rights. II.6:
Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.Evidence for this: otherwise, by what right can a nation such as ours execute punishment upon a foreigner-- who, having not participated in the legislation of law, is not bound to live under it?
Contraposed to this universal right, there is also the individual right of the aggrieved to extract satisfaction from the wrongdoer or injurer. Some will say this is going too far, that placing this power within the individual opens the door to exaggeration of injury and improper punishment. Keep in mind we're discussing justice in the state of Nature-- of course in a mature government it would be good to move this power into formal courts and within the people at large. But then, how is that an argument for investing supreme power in a single individual monarch? If we are to design safeguards for the meting out of justice, we'd better do so more carefully than that.
--------------------------
Looks like the origin of what we call human rights really does depend upon human nature as infused in us by God, our Creator. And not entirely because every aspect of those rights is individually programmed into every human being-- that would be quite a trick to try to prove, working out the mechanics of God's creation of Man. Instead, Locke's point can be boiled down to a much simpler argument: it is our subordination under God that puts us all at essentially the same moral level, and it is from that perspective that we have the responsibility to ensure that no one can interfere with at least the basics of another's nature. It is only if we are not all born into an identical station under God that it would be possible that some are born to a higher station, and can claim for themselves authority and power over the others. Nietzche's Superman?
Don't forget though, at the moment, we're only talking about Man actually living in an undeveloped state of Nature. The consequences of all this may change as society is built.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Second Treatise Of Civil Government (John Locke)
Along with Montesquieu, Locke is cited as the most vital influence on the drafters of the Constitution. Might as well find out what all the fuss is about.I was surprised I didn't already own this, but it looks like the only Locke I collected in my philosophy days was the Essay Concerning Human Understanding-- and that more than once. So once again the library provides. (The pictured copy is not the one I'm reading. Same publisher, though. Mine is a nondescript hardbound blue book by Everyman's Library from 1949.)
According to the introduction, the First Treatise is entirely outdated and not worth the time. I'll skim through it, but the Second Treatise is where all the action is. Note: Full title is "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government".
Keeping my fingers crossed that this doesn't turn into another Montesquieu situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)