4. The Consent of the Governed

4.
The Consent of the Governed

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (1690)

Hobbes’s fellow Englishman John Locke (1632–1704) likewise viewed the tumults of his day with a critical eye. Although the English civil war ended with the restoration of Charles II to the throne, new troubles loomed. Charles openly sympathized with Catholics, as did his brother and heir, James II. Fearful of the ties between Catholicism and French absolutism, in 1678 Parliament denied the right of a Catholic to inherit the crown. Charles resisted this move, sparking a succession crisis. Locke fled to the Dutch Republic in 1683 with his patron, the Earl of Shaftesbury, who opposed a Catholic monarch. While abroad, Locke worked on his Two Treatises of Government, which he published upon his return to England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. A selection from the Second Treatise follows. As it reveals, although Locke shared Hobbes’s interest in the origins of civil society, his anti-absolutist stance stood in sharp contrast to Hobbes’s position. For Locke, ultimate authority rests in the will of the majority of propertied men who, in exchange for protection, endow the state with the authority to rule over them. Yet this power is not limitless. Just as the majority grants the state its power, so too can it justifiably resist it if it fails to fulfill its part of the social contract.

From John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, at www.ilt.columbia.edu/academic/digitexts/locke/second/locke2nd.txt.

Of the Beginning of Political Societies

Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest. . . .

And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit. . . .

Whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals, that enter into, or make up a commonwealth. And thus that, which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did, or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.

Of the Ends of Political Society and Government

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

First, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men’s.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniences that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

For in the state of nature, to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers.

The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself, and others within the permission of the law of nature: by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society, distinct from all other creatures. And were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other; no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and by positive agreements combine into smaller and divided associations.

The other power a man has in the state of nature, is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up, when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular politic society, and incorporates into any commonwealth, separate from the rest of mankind.

The first power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature.

Secondly, The power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society, as the law thereof shall require: for being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniences, from the labor, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require; which is not only necessary, but just, since the other members of the society do the like.

But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty, and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property, by providing against those three defects above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. According to Locke, what is man’s natural state? What are its chief characteristics?

    Question

    FZMu1NMCIRdPpR/3xJDp7/7mEbQCW2R17p0dNO5SveLcHC98b32zPe5W2omxm/M2mdeneMc3GS9MV3G6ECl5hTIjgkqdL5dzQcJ/OtMwXcHMKQf7YTRiq1SneFvTnGBHe7FA3qXrC/umLM8/OHtiR6K/uXWjO0fLHCjGb9YuCGY=
    According to Locke, what is man’s natural state? What are its chief characteristics?
  2. Why would men relinquish the natural state to form a government? What advantages does government offer?

    Question

    q3ZNYAMQ7/7OI+yVvj/5iIQzyxxFmk2MW5JW/ImccP1cK7WG03Y1aAGII8UbQB3Nakw9toDqHszGLYSrMbGHWEKMa1z8Zf0vxjDnxERt+dIRdxT+7TxQG7zJuYijBXAzweyhhSPe/r8osvv4sHYcZM3l4P5QHFY+iFjQG1VcV5q49OWrSbSTcJtJxF80/q6ZQBJ5eQ==
    Why would men relinquish the natural state to form a government? What advantages does government offer?
  3. How does Locke describe the relationship between a government and its subjects? What are its terms and conditions?

    Question

    6wpTQIaD0NZGNs7TpweETU9JOsvI+7SuMj8NLV12j1sNei1lssV3miNTFbJVYuTZ8JO06nDTW3Gfa9Fqe8HXy9Jfnj4zY7UcuhJUvg64mTX65MjP1m4awkt4uPT8ZiDXgFfUP6nzvzhsNbsqMbju5XiRNBOtl9mYWsLriAJAKN8+F0SlMuzmAe0f42ZCrPsA6+s4wl7AXuEq7h2g
    How does Locke describe the relationship between a government and its subjects? What are its terms and conditions?
  4. How does Locke’s proposed system guard against absolute or arbitrary power?

    Question

    Q9/3a7W9ICEIDMkSrRI3RIiVI6Y0A+6nXjm7VmmjbMTwdi6CLHJGgQC+J63dNaIeL05RH8DZ/bUtAAy1fllCMKJ3oksAdCH2EA6HUlxtIYEKwRgdV5jvnyCcPeFTwYPK3rOtL9AL8UjL7y3Ec8uTi27YNwkdeRzS
    How does Locke’s proposed system guard against absolute or arbitrary power?