John Locke: PS and its problems PHIL 2345:

The Compact Compact: –‘to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living…in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it’ (95). Duress? No; others ‘left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature’ (95); People give up their SoN powers to be used in their behalf by delegated authorities Majority rule: –‘And thus every man…puts himself under an obligation…to submit to the determination of the majority…or else this original compact…would signify nothing…’ (97).

Majority Rule The decision rule by which the people through their delegated authority arrive at decisions; What is an alternative to this principle? Many European countries, Israel, New Zealand use various versions of this alternative concept.

Tacit consent We may not be one of those who agree to the original compact How do we actually consent? At birth we have no nationality (118); –Is this true today? E.g. right of abode We tacitly consent by owning ‘possessions’ or enjoying ‘any part of the dominions of any government’ (119); –I own a flat so I consent tacitly to the laws of H.K. –I can sell my property and leave, thereby withdrawing my tacit consent; Is this the case in most states today?

Question What are the options for a new-born baby who passively utilizes the medical resources of the hospital in an already established civil society, –in choosing his own state (whether to stay in the state of nature or war or civil society), –given that he has, according to Locke, already joined the civil society by tacit consent? Does his subjective will to join/not join civil society matter if he has already ‘agreed’ to join by his tacit consent?

Forms of Commonwealth Three possibilities, plus mixtures: –Democracy –Oligarchy –Monarchy What Locke means (133): –‘not a democracy or any form of government, but any independent community…’ –Civitas (Lat.) –Polis (Greek)

The Legislative (includes judiciary) The supreme rule-making authority vested in a body of the people’s representatives: –May not transfer its power (141) –A ‘fiduciary power to act for certain ends’ (149). May take the form of an assembly –Meeting constantly (may take too much power--156) –Or intermittently (Locke prefers this) Must ‘dispense justice’ in accord with –‘promulgated, standing laws’ –Using ‘known, authorized judges’ –‘indifferent laws’—’one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at court, and the country man at plough’ (142).

The Executive Subordinate to the Legislative power if not part of the legislative (e.g. parliamentary system) There must be safeguards against arbitrary, tyrannical rule –Even a soldier is not commanded arbitrarily—his CO does not lay claim to his money; –No arbitrary power even in SoN. May organise elections to legislative, but may not hinder either the elections or the meetings of people’s reps –Ex: Martial law declarations by leaders such as Marcos of the Philippines.

No taxation w/out representation He acknowledges that ‘governments cannot be supported without great charge’; I.e. taxes are necessary: –‘…it is fit that everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it’; –More than a ‘nightwatchman state’? ‘But still it must be with his own consent’ (140); Ex: Boston Tea Party.

Eminent Domain This is when the state takes your property, for some public purpose, e.g. road-building Locke says such actions must be strictly monitored They must conform with the principles on which civil society is based: –Preservation of property –‘Fences’ around citizens’ property (136) –The public good (158) –The good of humanity (229)

How can people ‘remove or alter’ legislative (149)? Recall votes Impeachment Direct appeal to Executive to dissolve the parliament, assembly Term limits

All power to the people Ultimately, the people are the supreme power Not the ‘Sovereign’ or Leviathan Yet they only take power directly if the Legislative betrays the people or fails to perform its duties See ‘Dissolution’ slide.

Dissolution of Gov’t (ch. 19) When Legislative fails to uphold trust placed in it by people: –allows its power to be taken by a foreign power = return to SoN (211); –abuses the people’s rights, taking their property beyond the bounds of its authority. When Executive abuses its power—e.g. not holding elections, disrupting assemblies of legislative; The powers vested in the Legislative then revert back to the people; Cf. Hobbes: Sovereign is supreme, not people, who retain no power after Covenant.

Question In a given area, most people give up their SoN rights to join the commonwealth however a few decide to stay in the SoN. The few that do not join are put in a disadvantaged state- while the members of the commonwealth benefit from working together and having centralized laws and leadership those who did not join are left to fend for themselves. If those in the SoN see their way of life waver due to their disadvantages, one option for them is to give up their SoN rights and join the commonwealth in order to save their livelihood--but doing so "half heartedly". Having people who are not fully committed to the state would surely hurt the state. What is in the commonwealth's best interest regarding those citizens who are not fully committed to the state?

Question In chapter 13, Locke suggests that the people can use force to remove a tyrannical executive if it uses force upon the people without authority, thus putting itself into a state of war with the people. If the executive has already acquired the power to use force, and he has disassembles and re-formed the legislative, how is it that the people will have the power to remove him since the force is asymmetrical? Moreover, even if this is possible, who decides that the executive has used force on the people without authority?