Locke
To understand classic liberalism we must focus on Locke's idea of political
power and his political model as well as his economic model. Locke defines
political power as a right of making laws with penalties of Death, and
consequently all less penalties, for regulating and preserving property, and of
employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the
defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the
Publick Good(Wooten, #2). This idea of thought explains Locke's main idea in the
Second Treatise of Government, that everything is best for the individual rather
than for the community. Locke's idea of politics starts off with a basis of men
and freedom suggested to us in the law of nature. The buffer between man and
brutes is the law of nature, which is a law of reason. Our faculty of reason is
fitted to discover what that law says, what it measures and standards of conduct
are (Yolton, 65). Men rise above these beasts only because of that faculty. It
is through the law of nature, reason, and humanity that each one of us makes
with all the rest of Mankind...one community, makes up one society distinct from
all other creatures (1.#128). So it is people in a community that come together
for the strength of the individual. Locke states that man must reside in the
community to reap the benefits. If a man opposes this, then he faces the dilemma
of giving up power for safety. In leaving the community of mankind in order to
form smaller associates of civil societies, natural man gives up the power of
preserving himself and mankind, giving that power to the civil society to be
regulated by laws made by society(1.#129). In the same way, the move into civil
society requires each man to give up his right to punish or kill as an
individual. Criminals in this society are to be brought forth to the community's
authority. Locke states that in leaving the great community of mankind and
joining a civil society, we do not cease to be men, or even cease to be members
of mankind (Yolton, 65). He quits his executive power of the law of nature and
resigns it to the public. So each man makes himself subject to the civil law and
finds his freedom in voluntary obedience. (Britannica ,1998.) The other power a
man has in a state of Nature is the power to punish the crimes committed a state
of natur In civil society, we are answerable to the whole community. In each
community there are rules, these are set forth by authorities. However these
rules are made up by the publick, or everyone in the community.
These rules are
eyed, the whole community is an umpire. The community must preserve the
property, and in order there-unto punish the offences of all those of that
society, there, is political society where every one of the members hath quitted
this natural power, resigned it up to the hands of the community. And thus all
private judgement of every particular member be excluded, the community comes to
be a umpire, and by understanding indifferent rules, men authorized by the
community, decided all differences, and punishes those offences(1.#87). The
function and the purpose of Locke's civil society is protection of life,
liberty, and possessions. An essential to making it work is trust between the
government in the community and is in place of a ruler who fails to secure the
public good. So the rulers authority is conditional rather than absolut. Each
man establishes his right to property by mixing his labour. So when everyone
contributes to the community they in turn are given the fruits of everyone elses
labor. He has the right to expect political power to be used to preserve his
property, in his own person and in his possessions, and the right to freedom of
thought, speech, and worship. Locke's political system was one that was
considered mixed constitution. The legislative should be an elected body, but
the executive remains a single individual, the monarch--and argues for s
separation of legislative and executive powers (Britannica, 1998). Locke states
that government cannot possess absolute arbitrary power over the lives and
property of the people. This limitation of power is to ensure that there is
preservation of life, liberty, property cannot be used to destroy, enslave, or
impoverish it's subjects (Hentrich, 775). Locke does state though that people
always have the right to withdraw their support and overthrow the government if
it fails to fulfill their trust. To ask how you may be guarded from or injury on
that side, where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of
faction and rebellion. Locke's model for economics, isn't discussed much, except
in brief periods.
Locke's main focal point for economics was one of property. As
before, I have shown that in the community others are obligated to respect
private property under the law of nature. His model supports that everyone in
the community has a skill and when that skill is harnessed and used, each
individual contributes something different to the community Locke says that
individuals could give away, exchange, sell, or accumulate property. Locke's
justification for such economic right was that human labor produced almost all
value, with nature providing only the raw materials, and the abundance or
surplus did not lessen the value, it just increased the amount for the others.
Locke argued against government limitation of interest rates and currency
depreciation, contending that civil laws cannot successfully thwart the laws of
value or supply and demand resulting from the actions of the individuals (Hentrich,
774). One key point mentioned is he says that the reason for someone's failure
in the community is because they are lazy, and not a hard worker. He feels the
more you contribute to the community, the more you get back. Whoever has
employed so much labour about any of that kind as to find and pursue here
wherein she was comm but a barter ship only works so much. A problem stated with
barter ship is the fact that wealth is a division of labour. Some things take
longer or harder labour, but aren't worth as much. For whatever bread is more
worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk than leaves, skins or
moss, that is wholly owing to labour and industry (1.#42). With perishable items
only being able to last such a short life that coined money is best for value.
Gold, Silver, and diamonds are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value
on, more than real use and the necessary support of life (1.#46). When people
have actual tangible money, this allows people to save for future wealth as
stated here by Locke. And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that
men might keep without spoiling, and that, by mutual consent, men would take in
exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life.
He goes on to say
different degrees of industry and labor were able to give men different
proportions of wealth now, so the invention of money gave them the opportunity
to become wealthy. I think that this design is preferred by my standpoint better
than the liberal welfare state of today. Before I attempt to explain why, there
should be some major differences noted and stated before I make my case. First,
technology being so advanced and rapidly dynamic, Locke's system would never
work. Secondly, America and the world are way too big to implement a community
based political idea today; it is impossible. I think that states could
implement policies, and procedures as they do today, but it would take forever
to take effect. There are too many buffers or middle men to go through before
anything is done. I think that our modern day welfare liberalism is in total
shambles. It is based on the middle class working and contributing to society.
The middle class is hit the hardest with taxes, and they are the hardest working
class. The poor receive benefits and they don't put anything back into the
system. The rich however, pay minimal taxes, and may be inventive but never
really work hard. However, if someone is rich they do contribute to society and
keep the industries and companies running. I will break down my answer into 4
categories: family, politics, economics, and judicial system. One focal point of
this discussion is Locke's views on children and liberalism. Locke states that
the first society was between man and wife, which was made for parents and
children. One of his basis for liberalism though was the family. He says this
conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so
long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are
to be sustained by those that got them till they are able to shift and provide
for themselves (#79). This shows us that a family is needed in order for a
society to work at all.
Parents must provide for themselves and when they have
children, take care and provide for them too. I think society in general has
lost that today and is so caught up in everything else that they don't value the
family. It is my belief this is why America today has many of its problems. As
for his economic policy, I agree with the way of the modern liberal state.
Computers, ATM machines,. banking, stocks, these are all necessary to function
today. Locke's system of, the harder a man works the wealthier he will be just
doesn't work today. This came about with the vast amount of ways that money can
now be made. Through an inheritance, a lottery, or even landing a really good
job, you can be rich. This doesn't mean you work harder for it or deserve it
because you are going to contribute it to society, it just means you're lucky or
educated or you have immense wealth another way, rather than just harvesting
more crops or plowing more fields. As for his judicial system, it would be more
effective in some ways, n we run into the problem of too many people for a
community to watch over, and the evolution of communications and technology has
advanced so much it would be hard to implement. Locke's theory of death to all
who are guilty system just wouldn't work. You would see people being killed for
running a stop sign and committing murder placed in the same cell. However both
systems have similarities such as being judged by peers and the right to appeal.
Those who are united in one body, and have a common established law and
judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and
punish offenders, are in civil society one with another (1.#87). It is hard to
connect the two systems and compare and contrast them because of so many
different factors that could be listed. It's just too bad society isn't as
simple in life as it is on paper.
|
