Locke Revolution
Last Friday, I spoke of my love for Thomas Hobbes and his theories on the natural state and social contracts. Another philosopher who is helpful in the discussion of social contracts and the natural state is John Locke. No, I don't mean the bald headed old man from LOST, I mean the English philosopher that was his namesake (interesting fact; many of the LOST characters have names that reflect philosophers and religious icons).
One reason that I also enjoy Locke is that he has a rebuttal and solution for any disagreement I have with Hobbes. Both believed in a natural state (although Locke was much more generous with human nature arguing that we have a right to life & property rather than a warmongering spirit that will cause us to lust after it endlessly). The agreed that humans will do everything in their power to keep life & property. Therefore, a social contract is needed to maintain civilized society. We give up the right to kill & steal, for instance, and in exchange for this sacrifice everyone else gives up those rights, too. Thereby, we create an environment where we can all live reasonably confident that we will not be murdered and vandalized. And if we are abused in manners, we have legal discourse (which obviously does little good to us if we're dead, but it may be a deterrent from getting killed in the first place).
Where the two diverge is the authority and purpose of government. Hobbes believed that in order to maintain social contracts, a high and mighty Leviathan- a king without limits, cruel and all-powerful would need to sit on a throne above other men, answerable to no one but himself (and God). Hobbes was a avid defender of a strong monarchy. He believed that people would only be safe if they acknowledged a common ruler.
Locke on the other hand, was greatly opposed the the Divine Right of Kings and argued endlessly- not against Hobbes alone, but also against Sir Robert Filmer's "Natural Right of KINGS" presented in his Patriarcha. Locke believed that the protection of property (property included "self" because we "own ourselves") trumped any other rationale for civilized society. He believed that property rights predate government and thus the social contract should not be reduced to simply the role of government in the lives of people, but rather the bigger picture of the mutual protection of property between persons. And in order for true civilized society to exist, one would need to be just as safe from the authority of government as one is from his fellow man.
Locke did not demand democracy, however. He was perfectly content with monarchy, republic, or oligarchy so long as some sort a separation or balance of power existed that would prevent one man (or one group) from gaining absolute tyranny over the rights of other individuals. He insisted that the people had a right, and perhaps even an obligation to overthrow any leader who abused them.
You can see clearly how his writings influenced the patriots of US and French revolutions. The Founding Fathers of this country and the people of France realized that they could never live in true freedom and justice whilst being governed by men who cared nothing for the freedom and justice of those they ruled.
Locke's ideals are something to think about as we assess the current state of our own government. Are we really being governed by men and women who care about the interests and rights of the citizens they represent? Are they defending the property rights of all men and women? Are the rights of the rich, the poor, and the middle class equally defended?
One reason that I also enjoy Locke is that he has a rebuttal and solution for any disagreement I have with Hobbes. Both believed in a natural state (although Locke was much more generous with human nature arguing that we have a right to life & property rather than a warmongering spirit that will cause us to lust after it endlessly). The agreed that humans will do everything in their power to keep life & property. Therefore, a social contract is needed to maintain civilized society. We give up the right to kill & steal, for instance, and in exchange for this sacrifice everyone else gives up those rights, too. Thereby, we create an environment where we can all live reasonably confident that we will not be murdered and vandalized. And if we are abused in manners, we have legal discourse (which obviously does little good to us if we're dead, but it may be a deterrent from getting killed in the first place).
Where the two diverge is the authority and purpose of government. Hobbes believed that in order to maintain social contracts, a high and mighty Leviathan- a king without limits, cruel and all-powerful would need to sit on a throne above other men, answerable to no one but himself (and God). Hobbes was a avid defender of a strong monarchy. He believed that people would only be safe if they acknowledged a common ruler.
Locke on the other hand, was greatly opposed the the Divine Right of Kings and argued endlessly- not against Hobbes alone, but also against Sir Robert Filmer's "Natural Right of KINGS" presented in his Patriarcha. Locke believed that the protection of property (property included "self" because we "own ourselves") trumped any other rationale for civilized society. He believed that property rights predate government and thus the social contract should not be reduced to simply the role of government in the lives of people, but rather the bigger picture of the mutual protection of property between persons. And in order for true civilized society to exist, one would need to be just as safe from the authority of government as one is from his fellow man.
Locke did not demand democracy, however. He was perfectly content with monarchy, republic, or oligarchy so long as some sort a separation or balance of power existed that would prevent one man (or one group) from gaining absolute tyranny over the rights of other individuals. He insisted that the people had a right, and perhaps even an obligation to overthrow any leader who abused them.
You can see clearly how his writings influenced the patriots of US and French revolutions. The Founding Fathers of this country and the people of France realized that they could never live in true freedom and justice whilst being governed by men who cared nothing for the freedom and justice of those they ruled.
Locke's ideals are something to think about as we assess the current state of our own government. Are we really being governed by men and women who care about the interests and rights of the citizens they represent? Are they defending the property rights of all men and women? Are the rights of the rich, the poor, and the middle class equally defended?