Locke’s Second Treatise of Government Essay

mental institutionIn this essay, I would equivalent to converse Lockes Second Treatise of organisation discussion section 131. This essay is dissever into four parts. In the archetypal part, I would like to interpret what Lockes position is develop in section 131 and in the next part, I would like to discuss how Locke supports this position by tracing back to the origin of establishment. Then in the third part, I would like to point come out some(a) flaws in this position by arguing evidences provided by Locke to support his position. The last part of my essay is the conclusion.Lockes Position in department 131In section 131, Locke explained that the ultimate quarry of uniting a society is to protect the security and property of the great deal and developed the position that the society should never extend its personnel far than the common good of citizens because its supreme agency is originated from the assume of tidy sum. In a word, according to Locke, the societ y is obligated to secure their property and is congealed by the hold of people.In order to prove the gear ups of the political science, Locke traces back to the origin of politics why globe is willing to give up his freedom and undecided himself to the dominion of a commonwealth instead of staying in the state of character where he has mightily to every intimacy.Three Inconveniences in the State of Nature correspond to Locke, for a rational man, the reason why man is willing to fork up their by honorabless, though man has right to do eachthing without being affected by the will of others within the law of spirit in the state of nature is the unsurety of his preservation. The enjoyment is unsafe. Because man is partial to his own interest and is wanting awargonness of the law of nature That being all touch on and independent, no ace ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Chapter 2, Section 6) and in that respect atomic number 18 probably continual invasions of others. As a result of this, in that location are three inconveniences under those circumstances.The first inconvenience is that there are no such conventional and well-known laws which heap be utilise as the standard to judge what is right and what is wrong so that everyone is uncertain about their future and their property including their security, estate and possession etc. Or if there is a united society,The second one is that there is no popular and indifferent judge to rigidly distinguish between right and wrong by the established law. Everyone flush toilet be the judge himself in the state of nature, but they always tend to bias to themselves, their friends and families.The third one is that there is no power to turn back the punishment. In the state of nature, everyone has the right to punish whoever breaks the law of nature. According to Locke, it is administrator power. But that may honk them in a dangerous situation so that the punishmen t is wicked to be carried out.The origin of the GovernmentAccording to Locke, due to all these defects in the state of nature, people were thinking about uniting a commonwealth. Surrendering their rights to a crowned head which can use the supreme power to protect them is a remedy. The right of government comes from its subjects, and the government can never override them.Lockes Solutions to Restrict the Power of the Government and My argument From my perspective, I think Lockes position on the limits of government seems good-natured of idealistic. The biggest question is how citizens can ensure that after the government gains the supreme power, it does what it is expected to do as victor intention. Political power has a character to expand itself. If there is no limit of power of the sovereign, even though he is a man who has a good virtue, it is exempt uncertain that he governs the society side by side(p) the law without any extemporary decrees all the cartridge clip. Hence, Locke provides three terminations to restrict the power of the government. There might be some fIaws in them. I would like discuss all of them below step by step.The first solution that Locke provides is that the government is limited by the law established by the consent of the majority. When the sovereign rules the state, he must obey the laws which made by the majority rather than govern it by his own will. 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 (Chapter 9, Section 131)From my perspective, obviously there is no coercive power to guarantee that the government is run low by the law except revolution (I will it discuss in the third point.) Moreover, it is in like manner questionable whether there exists such kind of law which is able to represent the common good indeed. Even in our times when the legal system is more developed th an the times when Locke lived, a large number of flaws can be found in our laws. Locke argues that laws can be updated. But no matter how up-to-date the law is, it still cannot cover everyones interest.The universal of controversy cannot be avoided as massive as people are in the different situation. Locke himself admitted that when man enters into a society, he gives up his equation when they enter into society, give up the equality. (Chapter 9, Section 131) As there are different classes of citizens, they must check some different interests, which elucidate them in different statuses of society. There is no contradiction unless there is no end among people.Even that we are equal before the law, we cannot be protected by the laws equally. For instance, is a person is likewise poor to afford a lawyer, when his right is impaired, he cannot protect his right by law means and if a person has not canvas laws, his property might be invaded without knowing it. If the inconvenience i s caused by the ignorance, there is no distinct difference between the state of nature and the commonwealth.Furthermore, if there are conflicting interests between a person and the government, it will be in a dilemma. In this situation, if the person protects his own interest by law, interests of government will be impaired. And in the long run that may lead to the impairment of interests of morepeople even include the first man who tried to protect his interests by law.Locke may argue that in his second method that he advocates the division of political power and that he divides supreme power into three legislative, executive and foreign power. What the government has is just now executive power. The parliament has right to making law. And the government is run by the law. How can it do beyond the law? Moreover, the legislative power which belongs to citizens is always higher than executive power.It is one of the greatest contributions of Locke that he advocates to make legislativ e and executive powers apart, but in comparison to three individual powers legislative, executive powers and judicial review in political system today are employed, like the United State of America, It is not hard to find out the lack of judicial review in Lockes theory.Locke only divided legislature and executive branches. It seems that the structure of the government created by Locke is less developed than that of today. Without judicial review, the balance of power is weaker. Even our modern society in which there judicial system exists, the administration tends to gain power from time to time. For example, under the circumstance that judicial review exists, it seems that the strength of the president becomes stronger and stronger in the US. Moreover, Locke thinks that legislature could be formed of not only representatives but in any case the noble or a single hereditary person who has an executive power.Let us suppose then the legislative placed in the concurrence of three dis tinct persons. 1. A single hereditary person, having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. 2. An fictionalisation of hereditary nobility. 3. An assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. (Chapter 16, Section 213) That weakens the strength of legislative further.Even though those two solutions cannot completely ensure the government is run in the right way, Locke provides the third solution that people can pull away back their rights that they gave to the government by revolution and transfer rights to another sovereign if the government breaks the law ofnature.However, another problem may rise. There is the limit of revolution that Locke provides. According to Locke, the revolution could be legimate only carried out by the majority. What if what the government did is just harmful to the interest of the minority? Can the government united with the majority eudaimo nia from the minority by abusing their rights? The only thing that they can do is bearing subject themselves under the exploit. I do not think that Locke himself would like to become one of the minority members in that situation. Sometimes the good of the majority is not necessary the good of the minority. That is also an action of beyond the common good. It can be imagined that the consequence of benefit from doing harm to a small group of people is no difference with a political system of tyranny.In conclusion, Locke supports his statement that the government can only do the common good and never override citizens by tracing back the origin of the government. Because of three inconveniences in the state of nature, people are willing to transfer their rights to a government. The right of government comes from the consent of people, so it can never extend farther. And Locke provides three means to limit the power of government. However, I suggest that there might be some difficultie s to carry out these measures.There is no such coercive power to compel the government to play its role by laws. Furthermore, there is a doubt if such kind of laws representing the common good existing. And there is no judicial review to decide whether and when actions break the law. The action of revolutions does not functional all the time. The rule of revolution Locke provided may be the legitimate primer of putting the minority in the tyranny of the majority. But in any case, Lockes theory shows us the end of the society and the idea, the balance of power, and directs us to think about the way to improve the political system and make it more democratic.