Locke's Social Contract: Rights and Limited Government

1. The Foundation: Natural Law and Natural Rights

Where Hobbes began his "science of politics" with matter in motion, Locke grounds his system in a moral framework that he argues precedes any government. The cornerstone of his philosophy is the Law of Nature.

Unlike Hobbes, for whom the "laws of nature" were merely rational precepts for self-preservation, for Locke, the Law of Nature is a genuine, universal moral law, originating from God and discoverable by human reason. It dictates that:

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." (Second Treatise, §6)

The justification for this law is theological: we are all the "workmanship" of an omnipotent and infinitely wise maker. As such, we are God's property, sent into the world on His business. We have no right to destroy ourselves, nor to destroy others, as we are not our own masters. This is the fundamental axiom of Locke's system, a stark contrast to Hobbes's axiom of a restless desire for power.

From this universal duty flow Natural Rights. These rights are not gifts from a government; they are entitlements we possess simply by virtue of being human, and they exist prior to and independent of any political society. The most important are the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

To delve deeper into this foundational concept and its theological underpinnings, let's turn to a short but dense academic text.

2. The State of Nature: Liberty, Not License

With this moral framework in place, Locke's conception of the state of nature looks very different from Hobbes's. It is a state of "perfect freedom" and "equality," but this is not the terrifying freedom to do anything you can get away with. It is a state of liberty, not license. The Law of Nature governs everyone, so even without a government, murder, theft, and assault are morally wrong.

If Locke's state of nature is so peaceable, why would anyone leave it? Locke's answer is not that it's a hellscape, but that it suffers from three specific "inconveniences"—procedural defects that make the enjoyment of one's rights insecure:

1. The want of an established, settled, known law. Though the Law of Nature is plain to reason, men are biased by their interest and ignorant for want of study, so they are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them.
2. The want of a known and indifferent judge. In the state of nature, everyone is both judge and executioner of the law, but self-love makes people partial to themselves and their friends, while ill-nature and revenge can carry them too far in punishing others.
3. The want of power to back and support the sentence when right. An individual may be too weak to punish a powerful offender, making resistance dangerous and often futile.

Because of these inconveniences, which threaten to escalate disputes into a state of war, rational individuals are motivated to form a political society.

3. Property: The Fruit of Labor

Before we see how that society is formed, we must address the third great natural right: property. Locke's theory of property is one of his most significant contributions and is central to his justification for government. How can private property arise from a world initially given to all humankind in common?

Locke's answer is a two-part argument grounded in self-ownership and labor:

1. Self-Ownership: Every individual has a property in their own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.
2. Labor-Mixing: The "labor" of his body and the "work" of his hands are properly his. Therefore, whatsoever he removes out of the state that nature has provided, he has mixed his labor with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

If you pick up an acorn from under a tree, your labor of gathering it separates it from the common stock and makes it yours. This elegant theory is, however, subject to two important conditions, often called the Lockean Provisos:

• The Spoilage Proviso: You may only appropriate as much as you can use before it spoils. Anything beyond this is more than your share and belongs to others.
• The "Enough and as Good" Proviso: When you appropriate land or resources, you must leave "enough, and as good" in common for others.

Locke argues that the invention of money—a durable store of value—transcends the spoilage proviso and allows for the accumulation of wealth beyond immediate need, creating a framework for a commercial society even before the existence of government.

The protection of property (which for Locke includes one's "life, liberty and estate") becomes the "great and chief end" for which people unite into commonwealths.

4. The Social Contract and Limited Government

Having established the pre-political rights and the "inconveniences" of the state of nature, we can now construct the Lockean social contract.

The purpose is clear: to remedy the inconveniences and create an impartial power to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property. The mechanism is consent.

Unlike Hobbes's contract, this is not a blind surrender of all rights. Individuals give up only two specific powers they held in the state of nature:

1. The power to do whatever they saw fit for their own preservation. This is given up to be regulated by the laws of the society.
2. The power to punish crimes against the Law of Nature. This is given up entirely to the executive power.

Crucially, natural rights themselves are not given up. They are inalienable. The government is merely entrusted with the power to protect them more effectively. This creates a government that is fundamentally limited. Its authority extends no further than the common good and the protection of these rights.

This structure establishes the government as a trustee. The people are the trustors, and the government is the trustee, acting for the benefit of the people. If the government breaks this trust, the contract is violated.

A significant challenge to Locke's theory, which you may have already identified, lies in the notion of consent itself. Few of us have ever explicitly consented to our government. Locke attempts to solve this with the doctrine of tacit consent.

5. The Right to Revolution

The idea of government as a trust with limited powers leads to Locke's most radical conclusion: the right of the people to revolution.

If a government acts contrary to its trust—if it attempts to "invade the property of the subject" or put them under arbitrary power—it dissolves itself and puts itself into a state of war with the people. When the government becomes the lawbreaker, the people have the right to resist its authority and establish a new legislative.

For Locke, this is not a right to foment chaos at will. It is the ultimate backstop against tyranny. The "appeal to heaven" is the people's final recourse when there is no judge on earth to appeal to between them and their government.

This stands in complete opposition to Hobbes, for whom the sovereign could not commit injustice and rebellion was the greatest of all evils, risking a return to the war of all against all. For Locke, tyranny is the greater evil, and overthrowing a tyrant is not dissolving society but rather removing a cancerous power that has already declared war on society.

Conclusion

We have traced Locke's argument from its foundations in natural law to its conclusion in limited, constitutional government. His political system is designed not simply to produce security, but to produce security for the sake of liberty.

• Key Takeaways:
  • Natural Law and Rights: Locke's system begins with a God-given, universal moral law that grants all individuals pre-political rights to life, liberty, and property.
  • State of Nature: This is a state of peace, equality, and freedom governed by the Law of Nature. It is made insecure only by "inconveniences" (lack of known law, impartial judges, and enforcement power).
  • The Social Contract: To remedy these inconveniences, people consent to form a society and entrust a government with limited powers. They give up their powers of self-preservation-regulation and punishment, but not their natural rights.
  • Limited Government: The government is a trustee, holding power for the sole purpose of protecting the people's rights. Its power is limited to the public good and defined by the trust placed in it.
  • Right to Revolution: If the government breaks this trust and violates the people's rights, it dissolves itself, and the people have the right to resist and form a new government.

Where Hobbes saw a binary choice between absolute power and absolute chaos, Locke presented a third way: a government of the people, by their consent, for the protection of their liberty.

Preview of the Next Lesson:
While Locke's vision of limited government has been profoundly influential, it was not the final word in social contract theory. Our next philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, will offer a searing critique of both Hobbes and Locke. He will argue that Locke's system merely legitimizes a corrupt society and that true freedom is not found in the "negative liberty" of being left alone by the state, but in the "positive liberty" of active participation in a community governed by the "general will."