CHAPTER :-2

LOCKS’S EVALUATION ON NATURE OF STATE

Dating from the earliest recorded history, man has always sought and developed system of
organizing himself according to what is betting to his true nature as a rational being. Here
mains always a political animal and can only utilize himself fully in a well organized political
state. How well organized or how he could organize his political society is the problem
of political philosophy.But that the establishment of a
‘perfect’or ideal political society has always eluded him is not as thought provoing as the fact
that in his nature there is this yarning towards the perfect or ideal state. This yearning has led
him to evolve several system aiming at the ideal political  state is very evident in the
numerous theories of the state we have in human history.

"Political philosophy as we now is rational enquiry into all that concerns man and his life in
relationship with his fellow men in the state. It is the rational study and evaluation of the
elements of the state. So many, political philosophers adopted different theories and system
to ensure that man lives happily in the state.

LOCK’S POLITCAL VIEW- As one of the most outstanding social contract theorists in
history of political thought, Locke centers his political teachings on the theoretical orientation
of the empiricists. His political philosophy tends to the justification of the constitutional
government established in England in 1688 through the glorious revolution (the revolution
that deposed James II and enthroned William).

Locke meant the two Treatise of civil government “to establish the throne of our great
restorer, our present King William to make good his title in the consent of the people.

The State of Nature in Locke

According to Locke the state of nature is a state of perfect freedom and equality. There is no
subjection or subordination in the state of nature. People are their own judge and master, each
seeking his good individually.

The law of nature which is reason, governs the state of nature, obliging and teaching all not to
harm another’s life, health, liberty or possession, since all are equal and independent and
under one supreme omnipotent sovereign creator (God) sharing with one another’s
community, (the community of nature without any subordination to destroy one another).
Each should preserve the rest of mankind as he is bound to preserve himself respecting the
right of others and upholding the law of nature for peace and order. When one transgresses
the law of nature, one denies reason and equity and thus is dangerous to the entire humanity.
All men remain in the state of nature until they consent to form some political society.

When a man or group through absolute power attempts to hinder or deny another’s total
freedom in the state of nature, there is a state of war (i.e a state of enmity and destruction).
An attempt to dominate the other always induces resistance from the other and then conflict
or war.

The state of nature differs from state of war in the sense that the former is a state of total
freedom of men “without common superior on earth”, but the state of war is a state of force
on others since they have no common authority to appeal to. In Locke’s own words “want of
a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature, force without right, upon a
man’s person, makes a state of war.

The state of war results from the conditions of the state of nature. In order to evade this state
of war, men put themselves under an authority to appeal to and this takes them away from the
state of nature into political society through a pact (treaty).

Social Contract in Locke

Locke’s political theory was founded on social contract theory unlike Thomas Hobbes. Lock
also believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. And like, Hobbes,
Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish.

Social contract is the pact, which men freely consent to in order to enter into a political
society to avoid the inconveniences of the state of nature. By so doing they form a single
body polity – a commonwealth, by which the people put themselves under a political power.
This does not mean they will forgo their liberty and live in servitude. It means rather that they
forgo their legislative and executive powers.

That is they forgo the right of correction and punishment which they had in the state of nature
and hand them over to the common legislative power for common good. The pact that keeps
them in the single body polity is between equal free men not between the ruler and the ruled.
The people may revolt against a tyrant who attempts to violate their right of freedom, because
anyone who attempts to violate these rights puts himself in a state of war against the people.
If the people’s consent in the majority is supreme in the social contract, and aims at the
protection of liberty of the people, then “absolute monarchy which by some men is counted
the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society and so cannot be a
sound form of civil government at all . slavery for Locke is the continuation of the state of
war between a lawful conqueror and a captive. For him slavery is justifiable if those taken
into slavery are those who have lost their freedom by introduction a state of war.

Locke on Property and Labour

Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a
wide range of human interests and aspiration; more narrowly, it refers to material goods.
Locke argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.

On the acquisition of private property, Locke holds that God has given the earth and its
resources to men in common and they are free to appropriate it for private use through their
labour. Labour takes what is common out of the hands of nature and makes it his property.
Labour gives the primary title to private property. This refutes the view of all who resist
private ownership because all belong to mankind in common. But man through labour must
supply for his needs and therefore can acquire.

But the question is to what extent can one through his labour acquire property? Or is there
no? Locke replies that same law that entitles us to acquire also limits us.

For Locke, nothing should be wasted or destroyed; man must keep to the bounds of
REASON. He believes that there is land enough in the world to suffice double, the
inhabitants. Locks also acknowledge the natural right to inherit property. According to him
every man is born with a double right: A RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO HIS PERSON and A
RIGHT TO INHERIT WITH HIS BRETHREN HIS FATHERS GOODS”.

Locke on Political Society

In the study of Locke’s social contract theory, we have seen that for man to preserve his
natural rights and privileges, he has to be in agreement with others, quit his natural execution
power executive power and resign it to the community. The community becomes the umpire
of defence and property. Thus a civil or political society, a commonwealth is formed.

In the political or civil society one relinquishes his legislative and executive powers to the
commonwealth and authorizes it to legislate for the common good. the commonwealth, has
the right to rule every member and judge through appointed authority. The members have a
place to appeal to appeal for their rights. Without this decisive power to appeal to, any
association of man remains in the state of nature.

With this understanding of political society, Locke holds that absolute monarchy is
inconsistent with what a civil government is. This is because the monarch appears to be the
only one who retains all the liberty of the state of nature when others have quitted the state of
nature. For Locke that is no political or civil society. The civil society makes up the body
with polity with the legislature not a single member. Therefore, every single, member/person
because subject, equally with other MEANEST men, to those law which he himself, as part
of the legislative, had established.

Forms of Common Wealth

Locke distinguishes three forms of commonwealth

1. Democracy

This is when majority of the people have the whole power of the political community, able to
make and executive laws for itself through duly elected or appointed officers.

2. Oligarchy

This is when the power of making laws is put into the hands of few people and their
successor

3. Monarchy

This is when the power of making is put into the hands of one man. This could be hereditary
or elected.

For John Locke, there are three operative arms of the power of the true commonwealth.
These are:

a. Legislative Power

The legislative power directs the use of force of the commonwealth to protect the state and
citizens, it is the supreme power of the civil society, it is sacred and unalterable by the
holders without the people’s consent. The legislative power delegated by the people cannot
be transferred without their consent.
b. Executive Power

Executive power sees to the laws of the commonwealth and also keeps them in force.

c. Federative Power

Federative power naturally upholds the unity of the members of the political society in
reference to the rest of mankind. And since what involves on member may concern the
community. It involves also the inter-commonwealth relationships e.g in war or peace,
alliance, league, union.

N.B Among these powers, the legislative is the most supreme, but it remains a judicial
power. The people in effect still have the supreme power and can remove or alter the
legislative if they think there is need.

For Locke, so long as the government remains in power the legislative bears the supreme
place, since the law-giver must need to be supreme.

According to Locke, the gilding principle of the legislative and the executive powers should
be: SALU POPULI, SUPREMA LEX- the welfare of the people should be supreme law. And
since there could be cases where the welfare of the people is not provided by the laws it is
expedient that the law gives way to the executive power, in order that the good of the people
is procured. This consists in what Locke called PROGATIVE LAW (that is, to act according
to discretion for public good, without the prescription of law and sometimes even against it).
But the power of prerogative must be used for the good of the people, otherwise the people
can demand for the definition of prerogatives by the laws.

The Critique

We have really thanked John Locke for the job well done. His efforts to make sure that the
common good of every person is ascertained cannot be over emphasized. His social contract
theory seems to be one of the best theories ever studies throughout the history of political
philosophy, ranging from ancient through modern period.

However, we recall that Locke’s view of rights is based on the idea of ‘natural rights’. That
is, rights that that men enjoyed in the state of nature before the emergence of organized
society. But I see Locke’s claim as incomprehensible since it is very difficult to know how
rights could exist before there existed a government and a system of law to grant them and to
uphold them.

Also, I tend to disagree with Locke’s political theory of majority rule as this could degenerate
to Tyranny. Take for example a society where the majorities are Muslims. It is ninety percent
certain that the Muslims will always support laws that are pro-Islamic in nature and vice-
versa.

 From a critical point of view, Locke portrayed his philosophy as an attacking philosophy.
Hobbes seemed to be his target extending even to Descartes etc.

 Despite Locke’s close association with the church and the ecclesial institutions, rulership
while Hobbes places judgment under the sovereignty of God, Locke places it on the
people.

 Locke’s recommendation of revolution presents him as a violent political philosopher. Is

revolution the only solution to problematic government?

 Does he mean violent revolution or non-violent any way. There may also be cold-war
revolution. A philosopher should have diversified his philosophical thought.

 How to we know as masses when a government is dissolved and how would the masses
co-ordinate themselves.

 The mistake of regime may not represent total bad-will and may not necessarily warrant
Locke’s revolution.

 By suggesting revolution Locke invariably is propounding Hobbessian state of nature.

 If Locke believe so much on the right of individual or individuals, in the operation of the
state why postulation the state as mediator between these individuals in his teaching about
religious tolerance.

 Locke propounded that the people have the power to oust the government when it
misbehaves but how possible, how easy, how realistic is that view Locke and every
philosopher should be a realist – though idealism is philosophical view which may have
crumbles?
 Locke in his teaching about property, he placed labour at the forefront, the place of the
physically challenged was not clearly considered.

CHAPTER :-3

STATE IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES

Locke’s theory have been reviewed, the issue of whether it would support
individualist views in the contemporary situation will be examined. The political,
social, and technological situation in Locke’s time was very different from the
contemporary situation. During Locke’s time, his theory was considered very
individualistic; however, it would be considered less individualistic if implemented in
contemporary society. Individualists have always believed in increasing personal
liberty and reducing the ability of government to exert excessive control over the
populous. Locke’s arguments parallel these individualistic arguments as Locke argues
for private property, against arbitrary rule, and for considerable focus on natural
rights. In fact, implementing Locke’s theory in seventeenth century monarchies would
have increased (and in some instances actually did increase) personal liberty.
However, when considering current democracies, implementing his theory would
actually do little to meet the goals of contemporary individualists. Contemporary
individualists, such as Libertarians, still argue in favor of increasing personal liberty
and against excessive government control. However, they now do so mainly by
arguing that government should be minimal and therefore should increase
privatization, interfere less in markets, lower taxes, and provide fewer government
programs. Many individualists use Locke to support their views. Examples of this
trend abound in libertarian literature, articles, and websites.1 Although Libertarians
may indeed have a viable position if supported on other grounds, their attempts to
appeal to Locke for support fail due to the nature of Locke’s theory. If put into place
now, Locke’s theory would dictate that people with progressive individualist views,
being a minority, be prepared to live in a society which is not aligned with their views

1
Examples of such works include books like Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Michael P.
Zucker’ts Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy. Articles include Michael Otsuka’s “Self-
Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation”; Tibor Machan’s “Libertarian Answers to Conservative
Challenges”; and Neil Lock’s “How to Pay for Government.” Finally, websites of this type include the Ludwig
von Mises Institute’s www.mises.org and Reason Online (www.reason.com). These works are not intended as
the results of a thorough summary of Locke’s role in Libertarian literature but merely as some examples of the
trend. From my experience, Libertarian use of Locke’s theory seems very widespread and not in need of
extensive proof. I will assume this is the case without further investigation until I encounter an objection to it.
 without an effective means to bring about change. Locke’s theory advocates following
the mandates of the masses, something that the contemporary individualist typically
does not promote. The most significant effect of the contemporary situation is that
there is no longer an option under Locke’s theory for those who are not willing to join
an existing government. In describing the beginning of political societies, Locke uses
the term in vacuis locis, which means “in empty places.” These places, according to
Locke, are “free and unpossessed” by any state (367). It is to these empty places that
individuals should go if they wish to start a new society rather than accept
membership in any present society. There were such places in Locke’s time, and he
frequently uses America, presumably meaning North America, as a prime example of
a continent filled with such areas (311, 314, 318, and 319). However, as any
American can tell you, there are no longer such places in America nor in any
inhabitable part of the world. There are some unsettled places, such as deserts or
forests, but they are nevertheless annexed by some state.2 This presents a large
problem for those who do not desire to live in any established society. Locke advises
creating a new society if you disapprove of current one, but there is frankly no land in
vacuis locis on which to do this. The only option for individuals is to pick the society
they most prefer and follow the laws established by its majority. The contemporary
situation still gives us a choice, but it is between which group of people we consent to
obey rather than between joining some existing society or starting our own with
which we are guaranteed to agree. Consequently, in Locke’s theory, we have to accept
the status quo of some current state, a definite problem for contemporary
individualists who feel that no current state is minimal enough to align with their
worldview. Their only option is to join the most minimal society available and
attempt to bring about change. However, this latter option is also not as easy as it may
seem. also the influence they have over their territory.3 It is now very common for
single governments to legislate and enforce laws that affect millions or even billions

2
Private islands which are currently available for purchase fall into this same category of unoccupied but
annexed land. According to www.privateislandsonline.com, a website which sells such islands, "Since the early
20th century, every square foot of dry land on Earth has been claimed by at least one country or another, which
pretty much rules out…setting yourself up as the local sovereign." Though it is very possible that this website
could be mistaken, I believe they have a vested interest in being informed on this issue. The only way one could
set up a new government on these islands would be to purchase land from a country or convince the country
which owns it to release it, which no country would be willing to do in any normal circumstance.
3
Obviously, there were large groups of people contained under one government in the past, such as those in the
Roman or British empires. These differ from contemporary states, however, in that they were ruled by militant
means and were undemocratic. The issue of size comes into play when states are democratic since the larger
number of voters affects the influence one citizen has on policies.
 of people. One might even argue that, with the rise of globalization, it might not even
be economically possible for smaller states to have any economic power in the world.
Regardless, the population of the vast majority of contemporary states creates a
situation that diminishes the impact individuals can have on the laws governing their
lives. Not only do their votes carry less individual weight, but it is also difficult to
bring about change in the popular mentality. In a small community, an individual can
make her arguments known to the entire community relatively easily. But when a
community numbers in the millions or billions, the majority is so large, diverse, and
geographically distant that it is nearly impossible to effectively make one’s position
known.4 One must then follow the collective decisions with little avenue for
discussion. This consequence is definitely problematic for the contemporary
individualists. After being forced to enter into a pre-existing society and accept the
status quo, she now finds herself with the difficult challenge of convincing millions of
people to change their views. Until she can accomplish this, Locke is clear that she
must abide by the decisions of the majority on pain of being unjust.

There remains one option in Locke’s view, rebellion. If individualists can determine
that the government’s laws are arbitrary or are infringing on their inalienable rights,
Locke clearly states that they would be justified in inciting a revolution. However,
this final option isn’t much of an option after all. Even though there are no
contemporary states minimal enough to fit Libertarian standards, there are
contemporary states, such as the United States of America, Canada, and Western
European states, where rebellion would not be justified under Locke’s view. Such
rebellion would be unjust because current individualist grievances do not constitute,
according to Locke, justifiable grounds for rebellion. Take, for instance, the
Libertarian issue of lower taxation. In the states mentioned above, the government
does not tax arbitrarily and so the only other option is to determine that such tax laws
infringe on natural rights. The right to own property is indeed a natural right, and a
government that takes property without consent is indeed tyrannical and should be
rebelled against. But Locke clearly argues that having to pay taxes is not an
infringement on natural rights. In fact, he states that “Governments cannot be
supported without great Charge, as ‘tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the

4
This claim is intended as a generalization. There are indeed places where millions of people live in close
proximity to each other or where the population is not extremely culturally diverse. However, in the vast
majority of states, distance and diversity play the role discussed.
 Protection, should pay out of his Estate his proportion of the maintenance of it. But
still it must be with his own Consent, i.e. the Consent of the Majority” (380). Taxation
is necessary for government, and it is part of the price people pay for security. People
cannot be taxed without their consent, but, since people in the contemporary situation
must consent to join some government and since every government in the world
currently taxes, people must give consent to be taxed.5 Similar results can be obtained
for other Libertarian grievances. The problems Libertarians have with their
governments may or may not be legitimate, but they are not so extreme as to justify
revolution based on Locke’s theory.

It follows, then, that if individualists find themselves in a state that is not aligned with
their views, rebellion would be justified or unjustified. If it is unjustified, they may,
within the realm of just actions, only choose to leave for another state or obey the
established rules while attempting to bring about change in the popular mentality. In
either case, they must live in a society not aligned with their views. If rebellion is
justified, the individualist could help bring about the rebellion and overthrow the
current government. At this point, a new government would be created based on the
views of the majority of the members of the new society. If it happens that these
people are Libertarians, then a Libertarian state could be justly created. However, it is
most likely that the majority of the revolutionaries would have less individualistic
views and decide to create another non-minimal state. Provided that this new state is
not arbitrary and protects natural rights, individualists are again in a situation where
they must submit to the will of the majority. Thus rebellion offers a chance for the
creation of a Libertarian state, but the chance is very small. Whether or not rebellion
is justified under Locke’s view (which, in the modern situation, it most likely would
not be), rebellion is still the most likely option that individualists will be forced to
choose when trying to change a non minimal government.

Thus we see the dilemma that contemporary individualists face if they follow Locke’s
theory. Since all land is occupied by some state, they must choose to consent to a pre-
existing state. Upon doing so, they bind themselves to following that state’s laws.
Since laws are established by majority rule, those with minority views must obey laws
with which they do not agree. The option of rebellion would either be unjust or would

5
The only country that is known not to tax today is Waveland; however, because Waveland's territory is so
small and barren, citizens of Waveland must live in another country and are therefore still subject to taxation.
very likely lead only to the creation of another non-minimal state, both of which leave
individualists in an undesirable position once again. The only other option is to bring
about gradual change by convincing the majority to change their views. However,
since the majority in many states is so large, this is an extremely difficult and lengthy
process. In the meantime, they must follow their society’s laws.

CHAPTER:-4
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agyeman, K(2003) Offical Lawlessness: the Greatest Enemy of

Democracy in African, Lagos: Malthouse Press

Ltd

Ehusian, G.(1996) A Prophetic Church, Ibadan: Intech Printers Ltd

Locke, J. (1952) A Letter Concerning Tolerance in Hutchin, R.M

(ed.) Great Books of the Western World.

(London: William Benton and Ency. Britannica vol.

35

Locke, J. (1952) Two Treatise of Government in R.M Hutchins (ed.)

Great Books of Western World ( London: William

Benton and Ency. Britannica vol. 35

Locke, J. (1984): Edited by John Dunn, (Oxford University Press)

Locke, J. (1980): edited by A.C Frasher (kanikat press, London)

Hobbes, T Leviathan (1962) edited by M. Oakeshott (New York: Collier

Macmillan)

Hobbess, T Body, Man and Citizen, ed. By R.s Peters (New York: Colier

Macmillian)
Uwaezuoke P.O (2008) John Locke’s ideas of Responsive Government: A Review of the

Culture of Governance in Nigeria, in Philosophy and Praxis. Awka:

Fab Anieh Nig. Ltd