Ends 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

I. Government is created to avoid the inconveniences of the state of nature.

  1. In a series of phrases that escalate in their force, Locke tells us that the state of nature life is "uncertain," "constantly exposed to the invasion of others," "very unsafe," "very unsecure," and "full of fears and continuall dangers."
    1. In chapter 9, then, Locke seems to expect that the state of nature is likely to be a chaotic and  fearsome state because many people will violate the law of nature.
      1. His account of the state of nature here seems not that much different from Hobbes’s claim that, in the state of nature, life is "nasty, poor, brutish and short."
    2. But, earlier in the Second Treatise, Locke seems to have had a more positive evaluation of the state of nature. He seems to suppose in chapter 2 that most people will obey the law of nature most of the time. And in section 19 he contrasts the state of nature with the state of war and calls the former a "state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation."
    3. What accounts for this change of view?
      1. Earlier in the Second Treatise, Locke is giving us a picture of what the state of nature could be, if the law of nature were generally obeyed.
        1. It is this account which he uses in his arguments for moral equality and natural rights. He asks, in other words, what rules should guide people in the state of nature, that is, what rules would it be reasonable to accept if everyone else were to obey them.
          1. If the state of nature were thought to be as bad as Hobbes suggests it is, it might be hard to see why anyone would obey the law of nature. And if most people disobey the law of nature, no one can be expected to obey it.
        2. Locke initially downplays the dangers of the state of nature because he wants to justify the right of resistance to tyrannical government.
          1. Hobbes had argued that the state of nature was so horrible that people should obey any government, no matter how tyrannical.
          2. Locke has to show that state of nature is bad enough to justify creating a government, but not so bad that we should be reluctant to try to get rid of a tyrannical government.
            1. For more on this theme, see Dissolution of government.
      2. Later in the Second Treatise, when he want us to understand why governments are and should be created, Locke shows us that, in the absence of government, the state of nature is likely to be quite unpleasant.
        1. His argument, however, does place most of the blame for fearsomeness of the state of nature on an evil tendency in human nature. Rather, he points to the absence of the useful institutions of civil society.
        2. Locke’s account thus implicitly takes issue with the Christian view of original sin. The fault is not in us, but in our institutions.
        3. Blaming evil on having the wrong political institutions and looking for solutions in creating the right kind of political institutions is a common enlightenment theme. Kant held that a "race of intelligent devils" could create a good political order, provided they were intelligent enough.

II. Why do people disobey the law of nature in the state of nature

  1. Some people are inclined to violate the law of nature.
    1. Some people might be foolish and lazy and thus might leave themselves without the means to survive in some degree of comfort. So they might take the goods other people.
      1. At least in the early days of the state of nature, however, this might not be such a serious problem. For people can always seek the goods they need on land that is still in common possession.
        1. Yet it is possible that some people would be too lazy and foolish to, for example, prepare themselves for the winter, when food supplies and shelter is hard to find. And then they might take from others.
        2. Moreover, as the common land becomes appropriated by individuals, it becomes more and more difficult for people to support themselves on the land.
      2. So some people will commit crimes because they are foolish or lazy. Yet this cannot be the whole problem with the state of nature. It is hard to believe that most people will be so foolish or lazy or that the crimes they commit will be all that serious. Nor is it likely that it will be so difficult to enforce the law of nature when those who violate the law are foolish or lazy.
    2. Some people might be, as Locke puts it, "quarrelsome" and "contentious." They might even get pleasure taking from other people rather than working themselves. (Some con artists, for example, work quite hard and could conceivably make as much money through honest means. What, then, other than a love of the con itself, leads them to commit crimes?) This is also a partial explanation of violations of the law of nature as well. Yet it is certainly possible to be quarrelsome and contentious without violating the law of nature. And not that many people are likely to be quarrelsome and contentious for its own sake. What then is the explanation of the fear people feel in the state of nature?
  2. The deeper difficulties Locke points to all flow from the difficulties of living under the law of nature in the state of nature as opposed to living under government.
    1. There is no "settled, standing law" in the state of nature and thus no clarity about what the law nature requires in particular cases. For the law of nature is a very general rule that does not help us deal with some difficult particular cases.
      1. There my be circumstances in which rights come into conflict and there is no obvious solution.
        1. The example of the noisy neighbor: how late can we play loud music?
        2. The example of the fallen tree: who cleans up a fallen tree?
      2. There may be circumstances in which
        1. The example of the unclear boundaries between one homestead and another.
      3. People might not follow the law of nature because they do not think through the implications of the law of nature for their own action. This can result when people
        1. Simply don’t stop to think and have no one to remind them
        2. Are biased in their own interest
    2. There is no unbiased judge in the state of nature.
      1. People are all likely to judge others more harshly than they judge themselves.
      2. Thus people are likely
        1. To exact more compensation or punishment than is justified.
        2. To find others guilty of violations of the law of nature more often than themselves.
      3. This can create a cycle of revenge.
    3. There is no power great enough to execute the law of nature in all cases.
      1. People may not have the cunning or strength to catch and punish everyone who violates the law of nature.
    4. The three things missing in the state of nature point us to the view of the three powers of government which was developed after Locke by Montesquieu.
  3. The Machiavellian response to the difficulties of the state of nature.
    1. We saw (in Equality and Rights) that Locke implies that people have a prudential reason to obey the law of nature in the state of nature.
      1. This argument presupposes the possibility of what we today call economic growth: an expansion in the production of various goods.
        1. Economic growth makes it possible for ambitious people to get more of the good things of life without taking from others.
        2. And thus people do not have to try to gain power to protect themselves from "those who to oppress others"
    2. While Locke says that economic growth can take place in the state of nature, given the inconveniences of the state of nature, it seems dubious that this can occur.
      1. The uncertainty of the state of nature stands in the way of people being industrious: why should we try to accumulate money when we don’t expect to be able to keep it (or ourselves) safe?
        1. The difficulties of Russia and other emerging democracies suggests that political and social stability and a moderate or low rate of crime is a pre-requisite of economic growth.
        2. The experience of poverty stricken areas in the United States, which are also high crime areas, provides additional support.
          1. High crime rates may be as much the cause of poverty as poverty is the cause of high crime rates.
      2. To the extent that life is uncertain and people are fearful in the state of nature, then, it might be that Machiavellian rather than Lockean rules would apply. That is, it might not be rational for people to obey the law of nature. Or doing so might frequently come in conflict with "their own preservation."
      3. This dynamic could be another source of the inconveniences of the state of nature.
        1. Perhaps Locke downplays this for the same reason he is somewhat reluctant to show us just how unpleasant the state of nature can be.