LOCKE: Of Civil Government (Freedom and Equality)
Reading
William Faulkner’s Barn Burning makes some readers stop and ponder. Why do we prefer living in civilized society
with other people under organized governments instead of just roaming around
the world on our own, similar to Abner Scopes, free to do as we please? Aristotle said we have a natural instinct to
form families. These family bonds then extend
outward to form villages of like-minded families. Only by establishing social relationships can
we go on to develop those larger communities called cities which make the good
life possible. Hobbes disagreed. He said governments are formed primarily out
of fear. We band together for protection
against those who would do us harm. By combining
our forces we can defend ourselves against those most cunning and dangerous of predators,
other human beings.
In
this week’s reading John Locke brings a different perspective to the discussion. His insight is that “the great and chief end
of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government,
is the preservation of their property.” For
Locke the desire to get and hold on to personal possessions is a uniquely human
quality. Many animals hoard food. But only human beings want things like books
and dining room tables and fancy clothes.
We not only want these things, we want to own them for ourselves. And we don’t want other people taking them
away from us. In Gogol’s short story The
Overcoat (GB4) a poor office clerk scrimps and saves for months to buy a
luxurious new coat; only to have it stolen from him by thieves. According to Locke this is the reason we have
governments. When thieves can steal someone
else’s property we return to a state of nature.
When a man can burn down another man’s barn without being punished we return
to a state of nature. What is this state
of nature? Locke believes the state of
nature is “a state of perfect freedom…a state also of equality.” This sounds easy enough. Until we start digging into the details. What does Locke mean by freedom? What does he mean by equality? And these seemingly simply questions lead to
more complex ones. Does personal freedom
ultimately result in social and economic inequalities? Does the liberty guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution ultimately result in men like Major de Spain and Abner Snopes?
Locke
helps us sort through this complex problem.
What does Locke mean by freedom? He
says the “state of liberty…is not a state of license.” Men are free to “dispose of their possessions
and persons as they think fit” but they’re not free to do anything they please. Why not?
Because “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which
obliges every one; and reason, which is that law…” Rational man lives by rational law and Locke
says “it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in
society with others.” A civilized
society has “an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common
consent to be the standard of right and wrong…”
That’s why Abner Snopes would only burn barns in the dead of the
night. He knew the common consent of the
community. Burning another man’s barn was
wrong. Snopes may have argued that it
wasn’t fair for de Spain to have a home as big as a courthouse while the Snopes
family has to share a two room shack.
Snopes doesn’t think this is equality and wants to help level the
playing field. So what does Locke have
to say about this version of equality?
He thinks there’s political equality when “all the power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” Power and jurisdiction are the key
terms. Government will use the power of
the law to protect Snopes two room shack just as much as it protects de Spain’s
mansion. In that sense they are equal. Karl Marx (GB1) protests that this theory of
government protects the rich and property should be redistributed for true
equality. In 19th century
Russia that kind of thinking could land you in Siberia. And that’s where our next reading takes place.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home