JOHN LOCKE

Introduction:

ohn Locke (29 August 1632 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher. Locke is
considered the first of the British empiricists, but is equally important to social contract
theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and
political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential
Enlightenment thinkers, classical republicans, and contributors to liberal theory. His writings
influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the
American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of
Independence.
Lockes theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and
the self, figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, JeanJacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first philosopher to define the self
through a continuity of consciousness. He also postulated that the mind was a blank slate or
tabula rasa; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that
people are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by
experience derived by sense perception.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 represented a triumph .of the Whig party and the Whig
principles of government but the Revolution was not legal in the strict sense of the world. The
Whigs felt compelled to justify their coup de etat to a nation which had so far been fed, on the
whole, on absolutist doctrines. Lockes Civil Government, which contains the substance of his
political philosophy and which portrays, in general, the Whig philosophy of the day, is really an
apology for the Revolution of 1688. As a confidential secretary of Lord Shaftesbury, the founder
of the Whig party, Locke gained some experience of practical politics. He opposed the theory of
Divine Right of Kings upheld by the Anglican church and by Filmer as well as repudiated the
absolute sovereignty of Hobbes. He was the chief official Whig interpreter of the revolution. He
was a rationalist. Whether he wrote on theology, on education, on toleration or on politics, his
basis of judgment was reason. All institutions including government, its various forms and its
political authority, must stand the test of reason.

His Works
Locke wrote two treatises on government. The first was calculated to be an answer to
the Patriarchs of the absolutist Filmer which had created a storm of indignation among Whig
minds as evidenced, by the fact that Algernon Sydney too, in his Discourses concerning
Government, noticed and refuted the Patriarcha by maintaining that government was a human
institution, having no divine or natural sanction; that its basis was popular consent and that
sovereignty belonged to the people. Lockes refutation of the Patriarcha was more or less on the
lines of Sydney. The second treatise of Locke, entitled of Civil Government, presents a
systematic theory of the origin and nature of state and constituted a refutation of Hobbes. The

John Locke
92
political philosophy of Locke represents an elaboration of that of Judicious Hooker whom,
Locke acknowledges to have read. Locke also took up the social contract theory of Hobbes but
used it to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to those of Hobbes. The view of state of
nature of Locke resembles that of Pufendorf.
Locke, like Hobbes, is a contractualist but whereas the contract idea is a sham in
Hobbes theory, it is essential to that of Locke. The idea of contract implies certain basic;
principles which are that all human associations, including the state, are based on contract,
that, in a state, people are sovereign and cannot alienate their sovereignty to the government,
and that government is based on the consent of the governed. Arising from these basic
principles are certain implications. These are that because the state is of contractual origin, it
suffers from certain contractual obligations, that the state is of human origin and the king or
government is an agent and servant of the people, that the sovereign people can impose
whatever limitations they like on the government, that the government must be limited and
constitutional, that laws emanate from the will of the sovereign people and, therefore, there
should be a rule of law and not of persons, that sovereignty is delegated to the ruler on
condition of good behaviour and the people are judges of such behaviour and that the sovereign
people have the right of revolution and can justifiably depose a bad or inefficient ruler.
Hobbes uses the idea of contract and gives a contractual origin to the state but he
almost completely repudiates the implications of the contract theory mentioned above, for they
are not vital to his thought. He envisages an absolute and unlimited sovereign without any
contractual obligations. He adopts the form but rejects the substance of the contract theory
which includes popular sovereignty, limited government, rule of law and, popular right of
revolution. He visualises a legal shoving with unlimited and absolute powers whose will is law.
The Hobbesian contract is a social and not a governmental contract. It is unilateral, unlimited
and irrevocable. This is against the essence of the contract theory. The contract idea is,
therefore, a sham in his theory.
Locke, unlike Hobbes, adopts the contract idea with all its I6th century implications. He
is for a limited government based on the consent of the governed, for sovereignty of the people,
rule of law, trusteeship principle, majority rule, right of the individual to natural rights to life,
liberty and property and for the right of the people to revolt against a bad or inefficient
government. Locke could only justify limited government, popular sovereignty and contractual
obligations on the ruler by giving the contract theory all its original implications. The contract
idea is, therefore, essential to Locke and is central to his thought.

Conception of Human Nature

Locke believes that man is a rational and a social creature and as such capable of
recognizing and living in a moral order. He is not selfish, competitive or aggressive. He feels
sympathy, love and tenderness towards his fellow-beings and is capable of being actuated by
altruistic motives and sense of justice. He wants to live in peace and harmony with others and
feels bound to them by ties of social cohesion. According to Locke, rationality was the
characteristic attribute of man. Locke did not take a dark picture of human nature as Hobbes did
because his times were more peaceful and settled than those of Hobbes. He wrote after the
Glorious Revolution whereas the Leviathan of Hobbes came after the violent Civil War.

The State of Nature

Lockean picture of the state of nature accords better with the findings of the Historical
and Comparative method of enquiry than that of Hobbes. It agrees more with the habits and
customs of existing primitive tribes. Locke, like Hobbes, begins his theorising about the state
with the state of nature but differs materially from, the latter in his conception of the same. Men
living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge

John Locke
93
between them, is properly the state of nature. This is a description not of savages but of moral
beings with reason i.e. the law of nature to guide them. It was a state of perfect freedom to
order their actions and dispose off their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the
bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
It was also a state of equality wherein all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal. It is not a state of
war of all against all.
To Locke, the state of nature is a state of goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation
i.e. a state not of war but of peace. The Lockean state of nature represents a pre-political rather
than a pre-social condition. Men do not indulge in constant warfare in it, for peace and reason
prevail in it. The state of nature is governed by a law of nature. Locke, like Grotius, believes that
this law of nature does not represent a mere natural impulse but is a moral law, based upon
reason, to regulate the conduct of men in their natural condition. The law of nature does not
constitute an antithesis of the civil law but represents a condition precedent to the latter. One of
the fundamentals of the law of nature is the equality of men who possess equal, natural rights.
Man being born as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled
enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or
number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property - that is,
his life, liberty and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men, out to judge of and
punish the breaches of that law in others. In the state of nature there was equality not in
intellect, physical might or possessions but equality in personal liberty or independence. This
equality of independence extended to life, liberty and property and was everybodys inherent
and inalienable birthright. It means that one man is morally the equal of others and has rights,
belonging to him as man, equal to those of other men. There was considerable social equality in
the state of nature. It was invention of money which brought in inequality.
In the state of nature it was the law of nature that regulated men. Locke identifies the
law of nature with reason. This law of nature was a law of freedom and equality. But Equality
was moral, not actual. The law of nature was based on reason, the spark of divine nature, and
its object was to preserve society. It provided moral standards for social action. It enjoined
keeping of faith and contract. The law of nature gives property-right on the basis of labourtheory i.e. mixing of labour with some natural gift. It willeth the preservation of all mankind.
Representing a moral standard, it is applicable to the ruler and the ruled alike. Being identical
with Reason, it not only regulated men in the state of nature but also regulated them in civil
society.

Its Shortcomings
The state of nature is one of innocence and goodwill but there are certain shortcomings
in it. In it, the individual is guided by the law of nature only. But man would sooner apply the
moral restraints of the law of nature on others than on himself. Even when he wants to do
justice to others, he is not sure that his judgment has not been warped, unconsciously, by
selfish considerations. He cannot be sure of the rightness and wrongness of his actions. Locke,
therefore, wants to transfer the responsibility of the interpretation and execution of the laws of
nature from the partial individual to the impartial community.
In the state of nature, there wants an established, settled, known Law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the Standards of Right and Wrong, (2) a known and
indifferent judge, with Authority to determine all Differences according to the established Law,
and (3) Power to back and support the Sentence when Right, and to give it due execution. In
the state of nature, every man has the power to do whatever he thinks fit for the preservation of
himself and others within the bounds of the law of nature and has the power to punish the
breach of the law of nature. Both these powers he gives up on the foundation of the state.

94

An Advanced Handbook of Political Science

Its Criticism
The Civil Government of Locke with its roseate picture of the state of nature and the law
of nature, represents a philosophy of the propertied and privileged class to which Locke himself
belonged, a class very jealous of its rights. The natural man of Locke is a propertied gentleman
insisting on his own rights and respecting the rights of others. He is led by the law of nature
which represents a moral consciousness of ones duty to himself and to his fellow-beings. It
may be said that Lockes state of nature is very like civil society without a government. His
natural man is governed by natural law which means the dictates of right reason and moral
consciousness. Need such a natural man enter into any contract at all! Unlike Hobbes, Locke
does not give a clear enunciation of the Law of Nature nor a systematic exposition of human
psychology.

Locke on Natural Rights

The natural rights of man, to Locke, are to life, liberty and property. Liberty means an
exemption from all rules save the law of nature which is a means to the realisation of mans
freedom. It means the liberty of men to dispose of their persons or goods as they like within the
allowance of those laws under which they are ; therein not to be, subject to the arbitrary will of
another, but freely follow their own. By equality Locke means not mental or physical equality but
the equal right every man hath to his natural freedom without being subjected to the will or
authority of any other man. Property comes when an individual changes the primitive
community of ownership into individual possession by mingling his labour with some object. In
the state of nature, individuals are conscious of and: respect these natural rights for they are
subject to reason, which teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession. The state
of nature is to be distinguished from the civil state by the absence in it of a common organ for.
the interpretation and execution of the law of nature. Hence in the state of nature every
individual is the interpreter and executor of the law of nature. Variety in interpretation due to
difference in standards of intelligence and in execution of the law of nature leads to chaos and
confusion and consequent insecurity of life and property. Hence it is necessary to replace the
state of nature by civil society in which there would be a known law accepted by all and applied
by an impartial and authoritative judge whose decisions would be enforced by the state. Locke
talks of rights as natural and inherent in the individual. If rights are natural they should be
eternal and non-varying but rights vary. The fact is that rights are a gift of society and can
effectuate only through the medium of civil society. Rights are born of human reason and human
needs. They are social rights. The primitive man had no conception of natural rights. Lockes
insistence on rights being natural to man has, however, led to the conception of a system of
fundamental rights of the individual which calls for a limited government as a servant and
trustee of the individuals.

Locke on Property
Locke held strong views on the institution of property and on the sacredness of the right
of property. Originally God had given the world to men in common and, therefore, no body had
any exclusive claim to anything. Though the land and all inferior creatures belonged to all, yet
every person had the right of property in his own person. The labour of his body and the fruit of
his labour was his i.e. was his property. If he mixed his labour which was his own with the earth,
the fruit of his labour became his own. By mixing his labour with something, man removes that
thing from the common right of other men. A mans labour fixed his right of property in the thing
wish which the labour was mixed because it represented an extension of his personality.
Lockes theory of property is a theory of formation reinforced by the right of hereditary
succession based on the law of nature. A man acquires the right of ownership in * thing which

John Locke
95
he forms by mixing his labour with it. By mixing his labour with any gift of nature, he does
enclose it from the common for his exclusive use and ownership. The right of hereditary
succession arises from the law of nature ordaining that a man must provide for his wife and
children.
Locke started with his original premise of perfect human equality of rights but has,
ingeniously, justified an unequal distribution of worlds goods. His theory of property resulting
from a man mixing his labour with earth and having as much as he actually needs may suit an
agrarian society but will not do in a capitalist and industrial society. Locke tries to overcome this
difficulty by introducing the element of money which gives a man a means of storing up property
without wastage.
From Lockes theory of the origin of property from the mixing of a mans labour, it
follows that the right to property existed even in the state of nature. As families increased..
by consent they came in time to set out the bounds of their distinct territories.. and by laws
within themselves, settled the properties of the same society. This agreed division took place in
the state of nature and, therefore, right to property is prior to the state and is a natural right. As
Locke put it, property is without any express compact of all the commoners In other words,
property existed before the social contract was entered into and did not result from it. According
to Locke, the right to property is a right inherent in the individual because his labour is inherent
in him. The society does not create the right to property and, except within certain limits, cannot
justly regulate it. In fact, the society and state instead of being creators of property are creatures
of it. Man created them to protect the prior right of property.
Locke held property to be a very sacred right. His natural rights are to life, liberty and
property. Of these, the right to property is so important in the view of Locke that he uses the
word property to denote any right. The individual, at the time of contract, does not relinquish his
right to property. The society, therefore, cannot regulate his property and even tax him without
his consent.
Like a thorough-going individualist, Locke makes out property to be something anterior
to society. Property is the inalienable birthright of the individual and was so even in the state of
nature. Primitive man is on his lips, but the portrait he paints is that of a civil man. The right to
property, says Locke, is natural. The fact is that all rights, including the rights to property, are a
gift of society and can effectuate only through the medium of society. Man is an integral part of
society and cannot have any inviolable rights against the society. The right to property must be
related to the performance of a mans duty to the state. His ideas regarding property are not
applicable in the complex industrial society of today.
Lockes view that property is a natural and inviolable right is the keystone of modern
Individualism. His Labour theory of property became, in the hands of Hodgskin and Thompson,
a parent of modern socialism. It inspired the Marxian theory of surplus value.

Lockean Conception of the Social Contract

God, having made man such a creature that, in nig own judgment, it was not good for
him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience and inclination, to
drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and
enjoy it. Again, Men being, as has been said, by Nature all free, equal and independent, no one
can be put out of this Estate and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own
consent. The only Way whereby any one can divest himself of his natural Liberty and put on the
Bonds of Civil Society, is by agreeing with other Men to join and unite into a community, for their
comfortable, safe and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their
Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. To Locke, peace and security
do not mean merely peaceful survival but also many conveniences, the most important of

96
An Advanced Handbook of Political Science
which is Property. Thus whereas the state of Kobbes is a necessity, that of Locke is a
convenience which must justify itself.
The social instinct of man gives origin to various social units, the last in the process
being the political society, which is formed thus: Each individual contracts with each to unite
into and constitute a community. The end for which this agreement is made is the protection and
preservation of property, in the broad sense of the word - that is, of life, liberty and estate against the dangers both from within and without the community. According to this contract
each individual agrees to give up not all his natural rights but that one of interpreting and
executing the law of nature and redressing his own grievances. But this right is given up not to
any person or group of persons but to the community as a whole and that too on the
understanding that the natural rights of the individual to life, liberty and property will be
guaranteed by the community. It follows from this naturally that Lockes social contract does not
create any absolute and unlimited sovereign. The political .society created by that contract is
the recipient of voluntarily conceded rights and cannot encroach on those rights which have not
been foresworn by the individuals. The contract is not, as with Hobbes, made with the ruler but
with the community which becomes the common political superior, i.e. the state, to interpret and
execute the law of nature. Locke does not clearly distinguish between the community and the
state. The Lockean state is not a sovereign state for the contract is not general, as with Hobbes,
but limited in character. The state is limited by the end for which it has been created as also by
the law of nature and can be set aside if it overrides its limitations or does not fulfil the end for
which it has been created. The Government, therefore, is a trust, breach of which would call for
a revolution. The ultimate allegiance of the individual is not to the government but to the
political society created by the pact, whom the government deputises for and of whom the
government is a trustee. The Lockean contract did not guarantee equality but only equality of
immunity from wrongful violation of life, liberty and property. The contract of Locke, .as that of
Hobbes is irrevocable because one who has entered it cannot again be in a state of nature.
Each generation must give its consent to it, implicit or explicit. It ends the state of nature and
not, as in the case of Hobbes, the law of nature. To Locke, the contractual origin of civil society
is a historical as well as a logical fact. Locke was one of the nearest in his assumption of social
contract as a historical fact. In his time, the tribes of North America were, more or less, living in
a state of nature.
The Lockean theory of social contract is hardly logical. Locke builds up his theory on
the basis of the ideas and institutions, of his day but fails to properly synthesize these ideas and
institutions into a definite and rational theory. It is not clear whether Lockes original compact
creates society or only government, though he later on distinguishes the two and though the
sovereign individuals rights limit both the society and the government. The Lockean conception
of social contract postulates four things i.e. (1) an individual with innate and indefeasible rights,
(2) a society as a trustee of the rights of the individual, (3) a government which is a trustee for
the society and (4) a legislature which is the all-important organ of the government. It is
significant that while talking about the government, Locke uses the word trust and not
contract. The government is a trustee.
The state of Locke is characterized by certain features which arise out of the nature of
the Lockean contract. The state exists for the good of the people and not they for it. It must be
based on the consent of the governed. It is limited and not absolute. It is a tolerant state. It is a
negative state which does not envelop the individuals but only secures for them their life, liberty
and property. It sublimates selfish interests of the individuals into public good.
Locke is neither a radical nor a reactionary. He believes in a constitutional government
which would not invade the rights and liberties of the subject, guaranteed to him by Natural law.
He believes that the ends of the state were not paramount and the individual could do as he
liked within the law. To Locke, law in its true notion is not so much the limitation as the direction

John Locke
97
of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest.. the end of law is, not to abolish or
restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

Government by Consent
Locke makes consent the basis of government and authority. No man can be subjected
to the authority of another without his own consent. A man is a member of a civil society by his
own consent. This consent may be express or tacit. For one whose consent is expressly given
the contract is binding and perpetual unless the civil society itself is dissolved. A person
remaining in a community and holding property therein gives his tacit consent. The consent of
the new generations may be given expressly or tacitly by accepting the protection of the state.
The government cannot take away from any one his property without his consent. This leads to
the principle of no taxation without representation. In actual practice, government by consent
does not mean government by personal consent but through, a representative assembly. It
means constitutional government.
Locke avoids the extreme individualist or anarchist position and holds that consent to
the formation of government once given is binding till the government is dissolved. He makes
the consent binding because he wants to build up his theory of political obligation on it. The
element of consent figures prominently at the time of the institution of government but not so
much in its actual working. Individual consent in the actual, working of the government is neither
necessary nor possible because government is one body, with a power to act as one body
which is only by the will and determination of the majority.

Popular Sovereignty
The Lockean conception of the social contract points inevitably to the theory of
sovereignty of the people, limited by the prior rights of the individual. At the time of the social
contract and the institution of civil society, the individuals surrendered certain of their rights not
to a man or assembly of men as in the case of Hobbes but to the entire community which
became the source and seat of all authority in the state. The people retain the right of removing
a government that betray its trust or is inefficient. The people have the power to remove or alter
the legislature. But this is not legal sovereignty and legal power. The community cannot function
till the government is dissolved. The power of the people to remove a government is
revolutionary and extra-legal.

Individualism
Fundamental to the philosophy of Locke is the concept that an individual has certain
innate and inviolable rights i.e. the rights to life, liberty and property which he cannot be
deprived of. It is for the more effective safeguarding of these rights than he himself can do that
he institutes the state which is a trustee for him. The authority of the state is conditioned by the
prior rights of the individual. Locke was a thorough-going individualist and placed his individual
before his state and society. With Locke, if there is any sovereign, it is not the state but the
individual. The state is a means, the individual the end. The state is a convenience. It is a
servant of the all-powerful-individuals. It is a subordinate, subservient agent of the individual. If
the individual of Hobbes is best in the state that of Locke comes, before the state.
Everything in Lockes system revolves round the individual; everything is disposed so
as to ensure the sovereignty of the individual. It is the individual and not the state which is the
all important entity. The state is founded and. maintained on the consent of the individual. The
individual has the right of resisting the state if the latter misbehave or abuse its trust.
Theoretically every individual has the right of appeal to heaven i.e. rebellion against the unjust
or tyrannical state. This means that the individual can resist any law or executive act of the state
which in his judgment is contrary to the laws of nature or to the trust imposed on the state.

98

An Advanced Handbook of Political Science

The individual enters the state as a rational and a moral being and does not owe the
state his rational or moral development. He does not owe the state his intellectual development.
In the rational and moral spheres, he is independent of the state. The state is thereindeed has
been primarily createdto protect for the individual his inalienable rights, particularly that of
property. The state does not create these rights, it only safeguards them. The state of Locke is
and individualist state with a minimum of functions but plenty of restraints and limitations. The
Essay on Civil Government is an assault not only upon the sovereignty of Leviathan, but upon
the very idea of sovereignty. Locke is intensely individualistic.
The obligation of the individual to the state arises out of his own consent to the creation
of the state. The state must justify itself by sub serving the interests of the individual if it is to
exist. The individual can impose whatever limitations he likes on the state. Even the sovereignty
of the community is subject to the prior natural rights of the individual.
Locke has done well to bring out the importance of the individual and to emphasize that
the society and the state are means to an end which of the welfare of the individual. But Locke
has overstated his favour of the sovereignty of the individual. His individualism suffers from
many weaknesses. He holds that the consent of the individual is necessary for the foundation of
the state and dissolution of governments. But this is belied by history. Locke talks of the rights of
the individuals being natural and, therefore, inviolable. If the rights of the individual were natural,
they should be eternal and non-varying. But rights vary from people to people and from time to
time. Besides, rights are valueless if they are not effectuated and it is only the state which can
effectuate them. Therefore, the individual owes the enjoyment of his rights to the state. In other
words, the rights of the individual are a gift of the state.
Locke reduces the regulative functions-of the state to the minimum. The state must
maintain the principle of equality of all in the eyes of law and follow a policy of non-interference.
Locke does not realise that individuals are unequal from the point of view of natural
endowments. A policy of non-interference on the part of the state would put the weak individuals
at the mercy of the strong ones. Locke holds that the state cannot regulate the moral side of an
individuals life. In the moral sphere, Lockes theory would permit the individual to refuse to give
his consent - and therefore his obedience - to any law or executive act which goes against his
conscience. This attitude is subversive of society and is akin to Anarchism.

Majority Rule
Lockes contract implies the rule of majority. Unanimity is required only at the time of the
original contract. After that consent means the consent of the majority. The law of nature cannot
be enforced unless the minority submits to the authority of the majority. Such a submission is
implied in the social contract. Common consent does not mean unanimous consent. The
majority have the right to act for the whole community. For that which acts (actuates) any
community, being only the consent of the Individuals of it and it being one body, must move one
way, it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is
the consent of the majority. Locke believes that consent to form a political society implies
acceptance by every one of the ride of majority because unanimity of will and opinion is rare
and individual wills or minority wills cannot reassert themselves without reversion to the state of
nature. The majority have a right to act and conclude the rest. This is .because where the
majority cannot conclude the rest there, they cannot act as one body and consequently will be
immediately dissolved again. Here, Locke does not realise the possibility and excellence of
minority rule. Many aristocracies have functioned excellently.

Limitations on Government
In favour of popular sovereignty: He has no idea of absolute and indivisible sovereignty. He
is for a government based on division of powers and, subject to a number of limitations. His

John Locke
99
limited government cannot command anything against public interests. It cannot violate or
abrogate the innate natural rights of the individual. It cannot govern arbitrarily but must do so
according to laws. It cannot tax the subjects without their consent. Its laws must conform to the
laws of Nature and of God. It is not the government which is sovereign but law which is rooted
in common consent. A government which violates its limitations is not worthy of obedience. The
state is created for certain conveniences and it must justify itself by creating those
conveniences. Locke, like Hobbes, is a utilitarian. He thinks that utility demands that the state
should conform to a moral order by acting within its limits and not functioning autocratically.
Because the. government, represented by its chief organ, the legislature, is a mere trustee,
there remains in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative when they find
the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed, in them;.... and the power devolve into the
hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety
and security. Powers of the government flow from a trust which binds the Government but not
the community which can change the trust. The government has fiduciary power to act for
certain ends and within certain limitations.

Government and Separation of Powers

The chief motive of the individuals in entering into a political community being to put an
end to the uncertainty regarding the interpretation and administration of the laws, of nature, the
chief duty of the political community i.e. the state created by the social contract is to pass
definite laws regulating rights and duties emanating from the laws of nature. Hence the
legislative function is the most important of the functions of the state. The location of the
legislative power in a state would, therefore, determine the type of its government. A
government is changed with a change in legislature which is changed if the monarch replaces
laws with his own arbitrary will or hinders the legislature from meeting in due time or from acting
freely or arbitrarily changes the electoral system or delivers the people into subjection to a
foreign power. Locke followed the time-honoured Aristotelian classification of government into
monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, according as the legislative power was in the hands of
one, few or many. Locke also believed in the possibility of a mixed government on the basis of
the location of the legislative power. To him, the executive and judicial functions were
subordinate to and dependent upon the legislative. The function of the executive is to enforce
by penalties the prescriptions embodied in the law. Locke refers to another function of the
government which he calls federative. This function means maintaining the interests of the
community or citizens against other communities or citizens and includes war, peace, external
affairs and other external matters. Unlike Hobbes, .Locke does not believe in the permanency of
the character of government. To him, monarchy and aristocracy mean .sectional governments
while a democracy, represented by delegates chosen by popular election, is best because it
promises enduring good rule. Locke, however, is not hostile to a monarchy which is based on
popular consent and it divested of the Divine Right of Kings. Absolute monarchy is no form of
civil government and is adjudged by Locke to be worse than the state of nature. In absolute
monarchy, the only person who enjoys liberty is the monarch.
Locke pleads for but does not fully develop his doctrine of separation of powers. It may
be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp power, for the same persons who have
the power of making laws to have also in their hands he power to execute them. He, therefore,
suggests the principle of separation. The legislature and the executive must be separated in
their functions, powers and personnel, for otherwise the legislators may exempt themselves
from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and its execution, to
their own private wish, and thereby come to have a distinct interest from the rest of the
community, contrary to the end of society and government. But in spite of separation of powers,
Locke gives to the executive the power of issuing ordinances when the legislature is not in
session. The executive, however, is visibly subordinate and accountable to the legislature.

100

An Advanced Handbook of Political Science

Locke suggests separation of powers for a number of reasons. Government is a Board
of Trustees. The best way of preventing the trustees from abusing their powers is to divide them
and their functions. Vigilance is the price of liberty. Then again the legislature cannot and should
not be constantly in session while the executive must be so. There-fore the two ought to be
distinct and separate. Besides, concentration of powers is dangerous and may lead to tyranny.

Limitations on the Legislature

According to Locke, the legislature is the supreme organ of government but is itself
subject to a number of limitations. It cannot be arbitrary over the Lives and Fortunes of the
People. It has no absolute powers. Its powers cannot exceed those transferred, to the
community at the time of the contract. The individual has no absolute power over others and
over himself and what he did not have he could not have given away. Its power is limited to
public good. Its laws must conform to the laws of nature. It can, exercise authority not by
extemporary decrees but by promulgated standing laws and known authorised judges. It
cannot take from any man any part of his property without consent. The legislature cannot
transfer its powers to any other body because its own powers are delegated.

Nature of Lockean State

In Lockes state, sovereignty remains with to community but is exercised by the
majority. The state cannot act arbitrarily but must act in public good. Its laws must be in
conformity with the laws of Nature and of God. It must rule, not by temporary or arbitrary
decrees but by permanent and promulgated laws enforced through known and authorized
judges. The legislature, as the authorized agent of the sovereign people, cannot transfer its lawmaking power to any other body. Sovereignty of the people, with Locke, is a power in reserve,
coming into play if the legislature betray its trust whereas, with Rousseau, it is in constant
exercise. Whereas Hobbes does not distinguish between state and society. Locke makes a
distinction between the two and holds that of the two, the society is mere permanent and
fundamental. The dissolution of the government does not involve the dissolution of society
whereas the dissolution of the society, generally resulting from external aggression, involves the
dissolution of the government. The government, according to Locke, is a subservient agency of
the community. It is not from a contract mutually binding the community and government that
the government derives its powers. Its powers flow from the trust that binds it but not the
community. The community can at will and it convenience, legitimately alter the character and
conditions of this trust.
The state is a political agency and therefore, has no jurisdiction outside the political
sphere. It cannot interfere in the non-political aspects of society. Here are germs of pluralism in
Locke.

The Right of Revolution

According to Locke the power delegated to the government is a sort of fiduciary trust for
the object of achieving certain ends. The supreme and ultimate power really rests with the
people. Locke does not create any determinate human sovereign with an incontrovertible lawmaking authority. If the government belie its, trust or overact its powers, resistance to it is the
natural right of the people. People have the right to determine if the government is justifying
itself and have the right to remove an inefficient or oppressive government. A ruler who acts
arbitrarily puts himself in a state of war with the people. The whole society has then the right of
resistance. Locke thus justifies the right of revolution. Resistance against the government is
necessary in case of substitution of arbitrary will for law and non-assemblage of parliament etc.,
for this involves violation of the social contract. The government being a trust, it follows that its
powers are limited. This limitation, if disregarded, justifies revolution. All power is given with the

John Locke
101
trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly
neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited.... and the government overthrown
by a revolution. The legislature is; the supreme branch of the government but its powers are
limited to those given up by the individual. It must follow the law of nature and not be arbitrary in
its enactments, for behind it stands a superior and final embodiment of power, the people.
Locke concedes the right of revolution when the government does not fulfil its end of securing
the rights of individuals, when the government is inefficient, when the government is pervert or
arbitrary, when the electoral law is changed without the consent of the people and when the
government places the people under foreign rule. Locke allows the people latent but not direct
sovereignty. The right of resistance lies in the people. Locke fevers the right of resistance i.e.
appeal to heaven to an individual but supposes that the actual appeal to heaven against
apparent injustice will be made by the majority. The right of resistance is most usefully limited to
cases where majority favours it but it is inherent in the Lockean atomistic view of society that the
individual has the right of resistance. Locke does not believe, with Hobbes, that the dissolution
of the government means the dissolution of the society. Locke permitted rebellion because, to
him, rebellion only dissolved the government and not also the society. When the government is
dissolved, the community is entirely free to set up a new government or even a new
constitution. A civil society may be dissolved by conquest or voluntary dissolution.
In his Of Civil Government which came almost immediately after the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, Locke formulated not a theory of government but a theory of rebellion. His
theory of government is rather weak. It gives a weak psychological and political basis to
government. Locke conceives of a sovereign individual and a sovereign community but not a
sovereign state. The government is a mere trustee or agent of the people. Locke bases his
government on the consent of the ruled but he does not, as does the General Will of Rousseau,
provide for the continuity of the consent. It is not clear whether the original social contract of
Locke creates the society or the government. There is no clear cut theory of sovereignty in
Locke. Locke views the state as a convenience and not a necessity and imposes many
limitations on the government which make for a weak and ineffectual government. His
government is further weakened by the inalienable natural rights of the individual.
If his theory of government is weak and defective, Locke is firm and convincing in his
theory of revolution. Locke had seen two kings and the Long Parliament misbehave and wanted
to prevent this misbehaviour. He, therefore, visualises a weak and limited government, kept on
good behaviour under the threat of revolution. The basic postulates of Locke i.e. (1) the theory
of consent and (2) the trusteeship principle reduce the state and the government to the position
of a trustee or servant who could be justifiably removed by revolution. The government is
subject to a number of limitations, violation of any one of which justifies removal of the
government by revolution. The individual or the community is the judge of whether a
government is arbitrary, oppressive or inefficient and, therefore, deserves to be removed by
revolution.
To Locke, the right of revolution is sacred. If a government exceeds or abuses its power,
it becomes tyrannical. The true remedy, of tyranny which represents illegitimate force is to
oppose force to it by revolution and remove it. Locke is a philosopher of revolution because he
omits to, provide any machinery short of revolution for the legitimate expression of popular
discontent. But he is the most conservative of revolutionaries. He cautions against a light
hearted resort to revolution. People should revolt only when a long train of abuses,
prevarications and artifices betray a sinister design on the part of the government to usurp the
rights of the community and of the individual and set up a tyrannical rule.

State and Church

102

An Advanced Handbook of Political Science

Locke is not an erastian like Hobbes. In his Letter on Toleration he discussed the
relations between the state and the church. He is for religious toleration for all except the
Roman Catholics because of their foreign allegiance, the Mohammedans, due to their peculiar
standard of morality, and the Atheists. The state and the church must be distinct. The church
must not interfere in state affairs, thereby giving a theocratic colouring to the government. On
the other hand the state should not bother about the religious belief of the individuals. The state
should not suppress opinions except when they are dangerous to its safety or tranquillity.
Opinions may relate to (1) God, (2) moral life and practical life. The state has no concern with
the first and only a partial one with the second.

Comparison between Hobbes and Locke

Starting with the conceptions of the state of nature and social compact, Hobbes builds
up the theory of an absolute irresponsible sovereignty while Locke starting with the state of
nature creates a limited government. Whereas ; the sovereignty of Hobbes is inalienable, Locke
believes that the political community which holds the real power delegates its powers to the
government, reserving the right to overthrow the latter, if necessary. Hobbes declared,
resistance to the sovereign to be unlawful while Locke expressly gave the right of revolution to
the people i.e. to the majority of the community. The individual of Hobbes is best in the state that
of Locke comes before the state. On the whole; it may be said that Hobbes is more original,
logical and consistent in his theory of the state than Locke. According to Bosanquet, For
Hobbes... political unity; lies in a will which is actual but not general while for Locke it lies in a
will which is general but not actual. Hobbes insisted that sovereignty must lie in a will which is
real and not fictitious. This will must be determinate and must be taken as representing and
standing for the will of the community. It must belong to tangible determinate individual or
individuals. It must be the actual will of the sovereign. It is the actuality and reality of the will of a
determinate sovereign which gives political unity to a society because the will of the sovereign is
a representative will. In other words, the Hobbesian community is united through the actual will
of the sovereign and not through a general will.
In the case of Locke, the government is a trust. It is the community which is the ultimate
sovereign. The sovereign community may withdraw the trust at any time and replace one
government by another. The will of the members of the government is neither so important nor
so representative as in the case of Hobbes. It is the sovereign community which can represent
itself and bring political unity to itself. In case of Locke, therefore, political unity lies in a will
which is general i.e. of the community and not actual i.e. of a tangible determinate sovereign.
Rousseaus General Will combines the Viewpoints of both Hobbes and Locke because it is at
once actual and general.
It has been said that where Hobbes differs from Locke, posterity is with Locke. There is
a measure of truth in this statement. Both Hobbes and Locke are social contract thinkers,
writing on the basis of their own conceptions of human nature, the state of nature, the social
contract, etc. The philosophy of both is born of the civil strife in England of the 17th century and
as such has a propagandist side to it. But both Hobbes and Locke rose above their times and
wrote for later generations too. Locke did not have the penetrating intellect of Hobbes and as a
speculative thinker he suffers in comparison with Hobbes.
It goes to the credit of Hobbes that he has given us the first clear exposition of legal
sovereignty, law and of a secular state. But behind and above the legal sovereign which is often
the Hobbesian type, we erect a system based on conceptions borrowed from Locke. The legal
sovereign in England, for instance, which is the King-in-Parliament works under a number of
limitations based on supremacy of law, supremacy of parliament, government by consent,
trusteeship principle, limited government, state as a welfare agency, natural or fundamental
rights of the individual, sovereignty of the people, etc.

John Locke
103
The Leviathan of Hobbes represented a centralised despotism which did not admit of
separation of powers. Locke, on the other hand, believed that legislative, executive and judicial
powers should be exercised by different organs of government. This Lockean principle of
separation of powers has found wide acceptance in the modern world. Then again, the Lockean
state is a Limited Liability Company, a sort of night watchman for the society. Its powers and
functions are limited and it is constantly on probation for good behaviour. In case of misrule,
Locke gives to the people the right to change the constitution of the state and government. An
average modern state has a constitution based on the principles of .Locke rather than of
Hobbes.

Criticism of Lockean Conceptions and Theories

Locke bases his government on the consent of the governed but his theory of consent
is defective because Locke does not provide for the continuity of consent as did Rousseau
through his nation of the General Will. His tacit consent robs the word consent of all its
meaning. Lockes theory of origins is obviously open to criticism for it is unrelated to hard facts.
Locke never tried, as Hobbes did, to trace things to first principles. It is not clear whether his
original contract-created the state only or also the government. His theory is not very logical. To
him, the state of nature was not only, a state of peace and innocence but it was an age when
individuals consciously obeyed the law of nature which enjoined justice. Comparing this to the
realities of today after the institution of civil society, one is forced to conclude that mankind has
retrogressed morally and intellectually which is untrue. Then again, like a thorough going
individualist that he is, Locke makes out property to be something anterior to the civil society.
Property, which to Locke, includes life, liberty and estate, : is an inalienable birth right of an
individual and is the main bulwark of his individualistic theory of the state. Primitive man is on
his lips; but the portrait he paints is that of a civil man. The state of Locke is not a sovereign
state. Pressed to its logical conclusion, the Lockean theory would make the individual the
sovereign of the state. To Locke, the state, so far from being a corporate body with a distinct
life of its own, is a mere aggregate of individuals, who agree to act together for certain specified
and limited purposes, but reserve their primitive freedom in all other matters whatsoever. The
state, therefore, is, at the most, no more than a Limited Liability Company; the real sovereignty
resides in the individual. Locke places his individual before his state.
Lockes theory is rather weak for a philosopher of his calibre. It is based on rather
unsound foundations and weak psychology. He is not deeply interested in the merits and
demerits of various forms of government and shows poor knowledge of them. His theory of
natural law con-bunds his theory of consent. The latter holds that justice or injustice depend on
civil law and social recognition whereas according to Natural law justice and injustice exist
independently of social recognition. Lockes theory of tacit consent is meaningless because it
would rationalise the most tyrannical government. Locke pleads for liberty but not equality. He
does not realise the relationship between the two. There can be no liberty where there is too
much inequality. Locke views moral laws as finished and based on universal principles and also
as temporary and related to different stages and types of society.
Lockes ideas of Natural Bights of the Individual and about the law of nature do not fit in
well with his empiricism. Locke gets lost between his all important individual and his belief in the
corporate character of the community which was as much a social reality as the individual. His
attempt at synthesis of the two did not succeed. What Locke does not realise is that a man is
born with not the natural rights of liberty and property but certain capacities or potentialities and
that his rights are a gift of the community which alone can effectuate them.
Locke is an empiricist in so far as he rejects the theory, of innate ideas. He is also a
rationalist as a champion of Natural Rights. His empiricism and rationalism make a sad
admixture. He agrees with Hookers idea of the community being a corporation. He is also a

104
An Advanced Handbook of Political Science
strong individualist. His concept of a community as a corporation and as a mere collection of
individuals is inconsistent. He venerates the community but places the individual over it.
Locke takes too much for granted. What might be the end of the moralising and
civilizing force of society, namely the creation of a moral atmosphere in which social relations
get adjusted without the coercive power of the state is taken by Locke to be the condition
precedent to the creation of civil society. Locke here comes very near Rousseau to whom civil
institutions are a sign of moral decay and a fall from primitive virtue. If the moral tone of the
state of nature were as high as Locke assumes it to be, then, in spite of its inconveniences,
there is little need for civil institutions and political organisation.
Locke shows a definite class bias in his portrayal of the civil society. He looked at the
working class as subject to but without full membership of the civil society. The assumption was
that the working class does not and cannot live a rational life Who were members of the civil
society emerging from Lockean contract? If they were men of property, how could such a
contract rationalise political obligation of all men? Locke insists on the right of the majority to
revolt against bad government but in this majority he, by implication, does not include the
labouring class. This is because the right of revolution depends on a rational decision and
rational political action of which the labouring class is incapable. Thus the labouring class is in
but not of the civil society.
Lockes civil society contains two classes, the propertied and the working, with different
rationality and, therefore, different rights. Lockes view of differential rights and rationality for the
propertied men and workers proceeds from his essential individualism which asserts that every
man is, by nature, the sole proprietor of his own person and capacities and, therefore, has the
natural right of unlimited appropriation. Once this appropriation, chiefly of land, is complete, the
pristine equality is turned into natural inequality i.e. into unequal rights.
It is this differential equality and rationality that explains why Locke takes a different
view of the state of nature in his treatise. In the beginning of his treatise, he views the state of
nature as one of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation in which men are social
and rational. In Chapter III, he holds that where there is no common authority, even a small
difference may lead to a. state of conflict. Further on, he characterizes the state of nature as
very unsafe, very unsecure. This variation, in the portrayal of the state of nature is
understandable in the light of his class differential.
A weakness of considerable importance in Lockes thought is that in one part of Lockes
theory . the individual and his rights figure as ultimate principles ; in another, the society itself
plays this part. This weakness arises from the fact that it embodies but does not properly
reconcile two different viewpoints. The medieval tradition, coming to him through Hooker and
the constitutional principles thrown up by the Revolution of 1688 such as the sovereignty of the
people, parliamentary supremacy and limited government made Locke assign a position of
absolute verity and importance to the society or the community. The community was sovereign.
The king, parliament and other governmental agencies were agents, instruments and trustees
of the sovereign community and were responsible to it. The community was a corporate reality
and not a figment of imagination. It was a corporate whole and not a mere collection of isolated
individuals. The end or aim of the community was the promotion of common good rather than
the promotion of the private interests of the individuals. Its right to control the government and
through it to regulate the actions of the individuals was unquestionable.
From Hobbes Locke borrowed the opposite point of view i.e. one of individualism. To
Hobbes, the individuals were self-centred and the community was just a sand heap of egoistical
individuals. The community was a fiction. It had no inherent strength, or sustaining force of its
own but was kept together by the strong and regulative hand of the sovereign. The individuals
were selfish and sought maximum private good, consistent with peace and order. They had no

John Locke
105
use for social good or society as such. What they needed was law and government to protect
them against other selfish individuals.
Compelled by circumstances of the day and his intellectual inheritances, Locke adopted
both the points of view without properly realising the essential incompatibility between the view
which held society as the supreme entity and the other view which held the individual as the
ultimate reality. The result of this dual adoption was that in one part of his theory, the individual
and his rights are the ultimate principles. In holding this view, Locke found support not only in
Hobbes but also in the law of nature which assigns each individual certain innate and
indefeasible rights which the community or government cannot deprive him of. The state is
based on the consent of the individuals and is limited to the promotion of their natural rights.
The state and the government are agents of the sovereign individual. In another part of his
theory, Locke concedes sovereignty to the community. This is evident from Lockes insistence
that the minority must submit to the majority which represents the community arid that the right
of revolution should normally be exercised by the majority of the community and not by
individuals. Locke concedes but does not reconcile the rival claims of the individual and of the
community to be the ultimate reality.

INFLUENCE
Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern
liberalism. Michael Zuckert has in fact argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering
Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong
influence on Voltaire who called him le sage Locke. His arguments concerning liberty and the
social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, several passages
from the Second Treatise are reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, most
notably the reference to a long train of abuses. Today, most contemporary libertarians claim
him as an influence.
But Lockes influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology.
Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and
Jerrold Seigel argue that Lockes Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the
beginning of the modern conception of the self.

Constitution of Carolina
Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also
to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the
English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company, as well as through his participation in
drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesburys secretary, which
established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. They note
that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673-4) and a member of the Board
of Trade (1696-1700) Locke was, in fact, one of just half a dozen men who created and
supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude[6] Some see his
statements on unenclosed property as having justified the displacement of the Native
Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is
accused of hypocrisy, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.

Theory of value and property

Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it
covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material
goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.

106

An Advanced Handbook of Political Science

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labour. In
addition, property precedes government and government cannot dispose of the estates of the
subjects arbitrarily. Karl Marx later critiqued Lockes theory of property in his social theory.

Political theory
Lockes political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes,
Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes,
Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the
introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone
had a natural right to defend his life, health, liberty, or possessions. Like Hobbes, Locke
assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people
established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state
of society. However, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name and may instead have been
responding to other writers of the day. Locke also advocated governmental separation of
powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances.
These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Constitution of the United States
and its Declaration of Independence.

Limits to Accumulation
Labour creates property, but it also does contain limits to its accumulation: mans
capacity to produce and mans capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is
waste and an offense against nature. However, with the introduction of durable goods, men
could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not
offend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the culmination of this process. Money
makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage.
He also includes gold or silver as money because they may be hoarded up without injury to
anyone, since they do not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor. The introduction of
money eliminates the limits of accumulation. Locke stresses that inequality has come about by
tacit agreement on the use of money, not by the social contract establishing civil society or the
law of land regulating property. Locke is aware of a problem posed by unlimited accumulation
but does not consider it his task. He just implies that government would function to moderate
the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution
of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem.
However, not all elements of his thought form a consistent whole. For example, labour theory of
value of the Two Treatises of Government stands side by side with the demand-and-supply
theory developed in a letter he wrote titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the
Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. Moreover, Locke anchors property
in labour but in the end upholds the unlimited accumulation of wealth.

Locke on price theory

Lockes general theory of value and price is a supply and demand theory, which was set
out in a letter to a Member of Parliament in 1691, titled Some Considerations on the
Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. Supply is
quantity and demand is rent. The price of any commodity rises or falls by the proportion of the
number of buyer and sellers. and that which regulates the price... [of goods] is nothing else but
their quantity in proportion to their rent. The quantity theory of money forms a special case of
this general theory. His idea is based on money answers all things (Ecclesiastes) or rent of
money is always sufficient, or more than enough, and varies very little Regardless of
whether the demand for money is unlimited or constant, Locke concludes that as far as money
is concerned, the demand is exclusively regulated by its quantity. He also investigates the
determinants of demand and supply. For supply, goods in general are considered valuable

John Locke
107
because they can be exchanged, consumed and they must be scarce. For demand, goods are
in demand because they yield a flow of income. Locke develops an early theory of
capitalization, such as land, which has value because by its constant production of saleable
commodities it brings in a certain yearly income. Demand for money is almost the same as
demand for goods or land; it depends on whether money is wanted as medium of exchange or
as loanable funds. For medium of exchange money is capable by exchange to procure us the
necessaries or conveniences of life. For loanable funds, it comes to be of the same nature
with land by yielding a certain yearly income or interest.

Monetary thoughts
Locke distinguishes two functions of money, as a counter to measure value, and as a
pledge to lay claim to goods. He believes that silver and gold, as opposed to paper money, are
the appropriate currency for international transactions. Silver and gold, he says, are treated to
have equal value by all of humanity and can thus be treated as a pledge by anyone, while the
value of paper money is only valid under the government which issues it.
Locke argues that a country should seek a favourable balance of trade, lest it fall
behind other countries and suffer a loss in its trade. Since the world money stock grows
constantly, a country must constantly seek to enlarge its own stock. Locke develops his theory
of foreign exchanges, in addition to commodity movements, there are also movements in
country stock of money, and movements of capital determine exchange rates. The latter is less
significant and less volatile than commodity movements. As for a countrys money stock, if it is
large relative to that of other countries, it will cause the countrys exchange to rise above par, as
an export balance would do.
He also prepares estimates of the cash requirements for different economic groups
(landholders, labourers and brokers). In each group the cash requirements are closely related to
the length of the pay period. He argues the brokers middlemen whose activities enlarge the
monetary circuit and whose profits eat into the earnings of labourers and landholders, had a
negative influence on both ones personal and the public economy that they supposedly
contributed to.

The self
Locke defines the self as that conscious thinking thing, (whatever substance, made up
of whether spiritual, or material, simple, or compounded, it matters not) which is sensible, or
conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery, and so is concerned for itself,
as far as that consciousness extends. He does not, however, ignore substance, writing that
the body too goes to the making the man. The Lockean self is therefore a self-aware and selfreflective consciousness that is fixed in a body.
In his Essay, Locke explains the gradual unfolding of this conscious mind. Arguing
against both the Augustinian view of man as originally sinful and the Cartesian position, which
holds that man innately knows basic logical propositions, Locke posits an empty mind, a
tabula rasa, which is shaped by experience; sensations and reflections being the two sources of
all our ideas. Lockes Some Thoughts Concerning Education is an outline on how to educate
this mind: he expresses the belief that education maketh the man, or, more fundamentally, that
the mind is an empty cabinet, with the statement, I think I may say that of all the men we meet
with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education.
Locke also wrote that the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender
infancies have very important and lasting consequences. He argued that the associations of
ideas that one makes when young are more important than those made later because they are
the foundation of the self: they are, put differently, what first mark the tabula rasa. In his Essay,

108
An Advanced Handbook of Political Science
in which is introduced both of these concepts, Locke warns against, for example, letting a
foolish maid convince a child that goblins and sprites are associated with the night for
darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined,
that he can no more bear the one than the other.
Associationism, as this theory would come to be called, exerted a powerful influence
over eighteenth-century thought, particularly educational theory, as nearly every educational
writer warned parents not to allow their children to develop negative associations. It also led to
the development of psychology and other new disciplines with David Hartleys attempt to
discover a biological mechanism for associationism in his Observations on Man (1749).

Estimate of Locke
Was Locke a political pamphleteer or a philosopher? There are those who believe that
Locke was a political pamphleteer whose object was to rationalise the Revolution of 1688 and
that his Of Civil Government was a peace occasion. Colour is lent to this view by the admission
of Locke in his Preface that his object was, to establish the throne of one great restorer, our
present King William. The book came two years after 1688 and in it, Locke upholds all those
principles, which the Glorious Revolution stood for namely the repudiation of Divine Right,
doctrine of popular sovereignty, supremacy of parliament, constitutional government, limited
monarchy, rule of law, etc. The type of government he suggests and the limitations on the
government all follow the pattern of the 1688 settlement. That Locke was a Whig writer is
evidenced by the fact that he never favoured communistic doctrines or social and economic
equality. He was for laissez faire and economic capitalism. All this was in accordance with the
spirit of the 1688 settlement which he tried to rationalise and uphold.
The other view is that Lockes work was essentially a philosophical work. Of Civil
Government may have been published in 1690 but it was begun and written substantially before
the Revolution of 1688. It is a philosophic treatise on the state and the individual and the proper
relationship between the two. It is a book not only of topical but of abiding interest because it
has thrown up concepts which are current coin in politics even today. It was because of his
deep philosophical insight that Locke profoundly influenced 18th and partly 19th century
thought. The fact is that the -two interpretations of Locke are not exclusive. We find many
strands in his thought.
It must be realised that, though circumstances made him the defender of the revolution,
he (Locke) was by no means a radical. The revolution which he sought to defend and
rationalise was a middle class revolution which stood for popular government and a
constitutional monarchy. Locke was no leveller or a republican. To him, a constitutional
monarchy was the best form of government. He was a whig and not a radical. He was for liberal
but not revolutionary changes in society and government. His theory of separation, of powers,
and his majority rule point to Ms political maturity and sobriety and go essentially against
radicalism.
Though Locke believed in popular government, he did not concede the same amount of
power over government to the people as democrats like Rousseau do. He gives the people the
right of forming their own government but once the government has been formed, it must be
allowed to rule without popular interference and control so long as it does not misbehave. Locke
was a sober Whig and Whiggism of the 17th century believed that the right of a community to
govern itself was not inconsistent with the right of the kind and other organs of government to a
status or a vested interest in their places. The great interests in the realm such as the crown,
the Nobility and the church could not be ignored or destroyed by the community. As an upholder
of -the Revolution of 1688, Locke was the most conservative of revolutionists. He was a liberal
and not a democrat.

John Locke
109
Locke is one of the first of utilitarians. His Utilitarianism is obvious from his contention
that happiness and misery are the two great springs of human action. To him, morality is but
pleasure and pleasure is only conformity to universal law. The public good is the rule and
measure of all law-making. Locke was one of the most prominent rationalist thinkers of the 17th
century but there was nothing very original in his doctrines. The concepts of social contract, the
law of nature, natural rights, right of revolution, on which he built his theory of state were already
known and pretty well developed. For his ethical and political philosophy, Locke was indebted to
Grotius as also to Pufendorf and Spinoja. He was materially influenced by the current politics of
England, and, like a good Whig, had to justify a fait accompli in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Lockes theory of state might be less logical and consistent than that of Hobbes, yet it capitally
suited the England of 1688 and after. His theory is more secular than that of Hobbes. One of the
prominent contributions of Locke to political philosophy is his definition of natural rights which
has presented the modern notion of Fundamental Rights. Life, liberty and property were
converted by Locke into the inalienable, concrete rights of every individual. Political society
could not be conceived of without them. The most important of the political contributions of
Locke is his theory of government by consent. The social contract theory has long been
exploded but the theory of government by consent still holds the field and gains strength daily.
Locke denied the right divine of kings to govern wrong by limiting the powers of the state. If
Hobbes theory of sovereignty is to-day one of the commonplaces of jurisprudence, ethically and
politically we occupy ourselves by erecting about it a system of limitations, borrowed mainly
from Locke. The future has justified Locke more than Hobbes. The Lockean views about a
limited constitutional government, sovereignty of the people, the state as a trustee of the
sovereign people, majority rule, government by consent, separation of powers and sacredness
of property and other rights are current political coin today.
Locke profoundly influenced the development of political theory. After him his theories
were developed by Rousseau into an extreme form of sovereignty of the people and were
responsible for the outbreak of the French Revolution. Lockes theory of separation of powers
formed the basic principle of the Esprit des Lois of Montesquieu, as well as influenced the
American revolutionists as evidenced by the drafts of various American constitutions.