Dissolution of Government

Marc Stier's Home Page • IH52 Home Page • IH51 Home Page • How to Reach Me • Syllabus • Texts • Paper Topics • Examination Questions • Notes on Texts

Action and Happiness
State of Nature
Equality and Rights
Ends of Government
Property
Origins of Government
Forms of Government
Limits on Government
Dissolution of Government
Locke and Contemporary Debates
  1. The dissolution of the government is not the dissolution of the society
    1. Political societies are dissolved only as a result of foreign conquest that results in occupation and control by another government.
  2. Dissolution of government
    1. Governments are dissolved
      1. under four circumstances:
        1. The government changes the holder of the legislative power, acting contrary to the consent of those who created the government.
        2. The government violates
          1. the rights of people.
          2. the rule of law.
        3. The government massively fails to carry out its central tasks of protecting life, liberty and property.
        4. The government turns power over to a foreign country or is disabled by foreign conquest.
    2. In these circumstances, the government has violated its trust. That is, it has acted contrary to the role assigned to by the creation of government.
    3. The people may thus resist improper government action and consider the government dissolved or come to an end
      1. It is the government that rebels in this circumstance while the people resist the government.
    4. When the government is dissolved, the people can create a new form of government, placing the legislative power where ever they wish.
    5. When
  3. Locke’s account of the dissolution of government raises two difficulties
    1. If people believe that have the right to resist unjust government, will they be too quick to act and perhaps even resist legitimate governments
      1. Thus the great fear of all who reject the right of resistance, including most Christian political theorists and Hobbes is that granting people the right to resist will lead to chaos and anarchy.
        1. And, as we have seen, for theorists such as Hobbes, the return to the state of nature is worse than any government.
      2. Locke argues that the people will not quickly resist even an unjust government and thus will not resist just governments. The people are reluctant to change governments, even when they are somewhat unjust.
        1. They become accustomed to certain government. They fear both
          1. the difficulties of resisting government
          2. the possibility of being without government
          3. the dangers of a new, unknown type of government
        2. Thus the people will not resist when governments make isolated mistakes even if it does so frequently or even if those mistakes are serious.
          1. Relatively few people will feel the burdens of such tyrannical actions
      3. Resistance arises only when a "long train of abuses" convinces the people that the "design" or intent of the government is to become unjust or tyrannical (in one or more of the four ways discussed above)
    2. Will the people resist tyranny at all?
      1. Given the difficulties, can we expect resistance? And, if not, what guarantee is there that governments will continue to do its proper task?
      2. Resistance seems to be lead by ambitious, quarrelsome people, reminiscent of the Machiavellian great, that is, those who would like to gain power to oppress others.
        1. Such people are probably always discontented and ready to lead opposition to the government if the chance arises.
        2. But they will not or cannot successfully resist government if the people are not convinced that the government is unjust.
        3. The ambitious people try to convince the people of the tyranny of the government.
        4. But their arguments only likely to be effective only when a large block of the people do expect that their lives, liberties and properties are likely to endangered by the government.