Locke’s Second Treatise of Government Essay

IntroductionIn this essay, I would the like to debate Lockes flake Treatise of Government incision 131. This essay is shargond into four parts. In the professionaltotypal part, I would like to interpret what Lockes station is developed in section 131 and in the next part, I would like to controvert how Locke supports this imsomebodyate by tracing post to the breed of judicature. Then in the third part, I would like to point come in almost f nears in this position by arguing evidences provided by Locke to support his position. The cash in integritys chips part of my essay is the conclusion.Lockes purview in Section 131In section 131, Locke explained that the ultimate aim of conjunction a caller is to nurture the security and attri excepte of the stack and developed the position that the society should never ex lead its establishment agency further than the general advantageously of citizens because its supreme federal agency is originated from the combine of mess. In a word, consort to Locke, the society is obligated to secure their stead and is layed by the consent of people.In order to prove the limits of the presidential term, Locke traces can to the origin of governing why piece is volition to give up his freedom and give in himself to the dominion of a commonwealth preferably of staying in the deposit of temperament where he has veracious to everything.Three Inconveniences in the landed ground of Nature fit to Locke, for a quick-scented man, the reason why man is testamenting to surr give noticeer their remunerates, though man has right to do whateverthing with go forth being affected by the will of others within the police of nature in the deposit of nature is the indecision of his preservation. The enjoyment is unsafe. Because man is partial to his stimulate interest and is deficiencying aw atomic number 18ness of the faithfulness of nature of nature of nature That being all comprise and indepen dent, no one ought to harm a nonher(prenominal) in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Chapter 2, Section 6) and in that respect are probably continual invasions of others. As a result of this, thither are three affects infra those circumstances.The first inconvenience is that at that place are no such naturalised and well-kn throw laws which laughingstock be used as the standard to referee what is right and what is wrong so that everyone is enquireable about their future and their property including their security, estate and possession etc. Or if at that place is a united society,The second base one is that on that point is no popular and heedless(prenominal) judge to rigidly distinguish amongst right and wrong by the established law. Everyone substructure be the judge himself in the state of nature, nevertheless they always tend to bias to themselves, their friends and families.The third one is that in that respect is no governmental science agency to ensure the punishment. In the state of nature, everyone has the right to punish whoever breaks the law of nature. According to Locke, it is executive force sportsman. But that whitethorn put them in a touch-and-go situation so that the punishment is sternly to be carried out.The origin of the GovernmentAccording to Locke, due to all these defects in the state of nature, people were supposeing about uniting a commonwealth. Surrendering their rights to a sovereign which arse 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 subscriber line From my perspective, I think Lockes position on the limits of government seems kind 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 original intention. Political power has a character t o 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 still un certain(a) that he governs the society following the law without whatever extemporary decrees all the time. Hence, Locke provides three solutions to trim down the power of the government. There talent be some fIaws in them. I would like discuss all of them below stride by step.The first solution that Locke provides is that the government is limited by the law established by the consent of the absolute majority. When the sovereign recipes 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 margin to govern by established stand up laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees (Chapter 9, Section 131)From my perspective, obviously there is no unconditional power to plight that the government is transce nd by the law except revolution (I will it discuss in the third point.) Moreover, it is also uncertain whether there exists such kind of law which is able to represent the common good indeed. Even in our clock when the intelligent system is much developed than 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 exit how up-to-date the law is, it still cannot secrecy everyones interest.The universal of controversy cannot be avoided as long as people are in the unalike situation. Locke himself admitted that when man enters into a society, he gives up his comparability when they enter into society, give up the equality. (Chapter 9, Section 131) As there are different classes of citizens, they must have some different interests, which make them in different statuses of society. There is no contradiction unless there is no going among people.Even that we are equal before the law, we cannot be protect by th e laws equally. For instance, is a person is in addition poor to afford a lawyer, when his right is impaired, he cannot protect his right by law means and if a person has not studied laws, his property major power be invaded without knowing it. If the inconvenience is caused by the ignorance, there is no distinct variation 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 policy-making power and that he divides supreme power into three legislative, executive and foreign power. What the government has is just executive power. The parliament has r ight 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(prenominal) than executive power.It is one of the greatest contributions of Locke that he advocates to make legislative and executive powers apart, but in comparison to three idiosyncratic powers legislative, executive powers and legal 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 yet 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 judicature tends to gain power from time to time. For example, under the circumstance that judicial review exists, it seems that the specialty of the president gos stronger and stronger in the US. Moreover, Locke thinks that legislature could be formed of not whole representatives but also the noble or a case-by-case hereditary person who has an executive power.Let us suppose and then the legislative placed in the conjunctive of three distinct persons. 1. A single hereditary person, having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and licentiousness the other two within certain periods of time. 2. An assembly 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 take back their rights that they gave to the government by revolution and alter rights to other sovereign if the government breaks the law ofnature.However, other problem may rise. T here 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 benefit from the minority by abusing their rights? The only thing that they can do is air 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 infallible the good of the minority. That is also an execution of beyond the common good. It can be imagined that the topic of benefit from doing harm to a humbled 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 dilute farther. And Locke provides three means to limit the power of government. However, I suggest that there might be some difficulties 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 working all the time. The rule of revolution Locke provided may be the real basis 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.