Kevin McMahon

Phil 245

Although John Locke is generally considered someone from whom our forefathers got a lot of their governmental ideas, he would not agree with everything that our government has done. He would believe that the United States government has gotten too big. Our government is too involved in areas no government should be concerned about. Locke felt that the purpose of government was to protect the property of individuals, nothing more. We will now examine some government programs and other areas of government action to see how Locke would react.

The United States government is supposed to be divided into three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Whether it was the intent of the framers or not, the executive branch, headed by the president, seems to have taken a superior role to the other two branches. More emphasis is put on presidential elections than any congressional race, and the President is considered the head of state, the Chief when it comes to dealing with other countries. It has gone so far that the congress has passed laws allowing the president to write treaties with other countries, skipping part of the legislative duties. In the Second treatise of government, Locke said “it being impossible to conceive that an inferior power should prescribe to a superior, or any but the supreme make laws, according as the power of making laws is placed.” He said that the lawmaking body, or legislature, should be supreme. Thus he would not approve of the situation today where there is a tipping of the scales toward the executive.

The executive branch of the US government is made up of hundreds of little agencies and departments. Just to name a few we would have the Environmental Protection Administration, Department of Labor, and the Federal Drug Administration. Congress decided to allow many of these non-elected agencies to write their own policies which in effect work like laws. For example, there was a controversy this summer over a government agency not allowing a casino to be built on certain tribal land. These are decisions that we the people elect representatives to make and yet the legislature feels it is legitimate to allow members of the executive branch to make these policies. Locke would be very much opposed to this challenge of judicial authority. He said “Fourthly, the legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. For it, being but a delegated power from the people, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others.” Some might say that interior department regulations are not officially laws. Locke would answer by explaining that government without laws is worse, it is “Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws.”

Back in the beginning of the twentieth century our federal government really grew in size. Many programs were started that continue into today. Many far-reaching laws that are still in effect were enacted during that time. I think that Locke would feel that most of this was wrong and would not fit into his ideal government.

During the Great Depression of the 1930's President Roosevelt, with the support of Congress, started what became known as “the New Deal.” Roosevelt’s New Deal was a far cry from what the government used to be. There was a time when the government had a fairly laissez-faire attitude about business. Not anymore. One of the main legacies still in effect in today’s time would be the current welfare system. The welfare system is designed to help those who have fallen on hard times. People who cannot afford all they need can rely on welfare to pay for their continued existence. The government giving out its’ money to the unfortunate could be a nice charitable act. Unfortunately the government has no money on its own. The only money it has, it gets by taxing its people. This welfare system effectually takes money from one person and gives it to another person. Locke explains that the only reason for an individual to enter a commonwealth and to leave the state of nature is because by being under a governing body, his property is to be protected from other individuals. By taking one person’s money and giving it to another (Locke would say), we are defeating the purpose of government, for the very thing the government is supposed to protect from, it is doing on its own.

Along the same lines, another practice that started during the great depression and yet still continues today is farm subsidies. In an attempt to control prices on agricultural items, the government first agreed to buy excess product from farmers, then went on to pay them not to grow it in the first place. The problem comes when the payment, for work not done, is received. This is another instance where the government is taking money from one person and giving it to another without them doing any type of labor to earn it. Locke was specific when he wrote about why people should have a civil government over the state of nature.

A slightly more popular program that Locke would have big problems with would be the Social Security system. This is a system designed to support people after they reach the age of retirement. Everyone is forced to pay into the system like it is an extra tax; you have no choice but to pay. This compulsory tax is used to pay for others at that time. Right now, about five people are paying into the system for every one person receiving benefits. The government is not investing the money it receives like a retirement account. The government is only turning around and handing one person’s hard earned money, to another person. Again, for obvious reasons Locke would have problems with this “sharing” of others’ money. This is considered a highly popular program, but that depends on who you ask. If you ask people in my age bracket, it is extremely unpopular because we know we are paying into a system from which we will reap no rewards (the system will be broke by the year 2020). The older you go in the age bracket, the more popular it becomes. People now receiving benefits and those who will be soon are the staunchest supporters (who would turn down free money). These groups also have the most powerful lobbyists. Popular or not though, Locke would disapprove of the system.

Locke has said the only reason for man to form a commonwealth would be to correct the errors of the state of nature. In a state of nature, he said, everyone has perfect freedom in so much as they do not harm themselves, others, or infringe on the rights of others. The problem occurred when people’s personal interests would tread on the interests of others. Therefore governments would be formed to act as the mediator and protector of man from others, and in Locke’s eyes, from himself. The only acts then that should be illegal would be those that infringed upon the rights of others. “The great and chief end therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” “Yet it being only with an intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty, and property:(for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse).” Locke was very clear on the purpose of government. He was not a proponent of positive freedom; he did not believe the purpose of government was to help every citizen be better, only to protect society from the individual. This is why he would probably oppose many of the programs of the US government, including programs like public education, the explorative space program, and things like the federal highway programs. All of these programs spend taxpayer money on purposes other than the main intention of government. Some space exploration is used to further our military, like spy satellites, Locke would not be opposed to taxes paying for that. The main purpose of governments is to defend its’ citizens, not only from each other, but also from outside invasions.

Way back when our nation was very young and very much on the grow, the government had to commandeer land at different times from private individuals. This is a practice that does continue today, maybe even on a larger scale with construction of major highways, and other roads. It is in our constitution that the government can only take land when it pays the individual for it, but it is common practice to not pay the person the full worth of the land, not to mention the fact that they have no choice in the matter. The government IS going to take your land, and you can NOT stop it. Locke was extremely clear on this issue. He said many times that the whole purpose of having a government is to protect your property. It makes no sense to have a government take your property without your consent. Locke wrote, “Yet can never have power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects’ property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.” In the second line he is saying that when the government has the right to take any part of your property without your consent, then you really have no property at all because you only have property in that which no one can legally take from you. If the government can legally take anything of yours, then, you have nothing.

Another government practice that Locke would disapprove of would probably be the vast intervention into the business world. Back in the 1800's our government started nosing in with the passage of things like the Anti-trust laws. These laws were designed to keep a single company from growing so large such as to drive out all competition in its’ particular field. I think Locke would be against anti-trust laws because they abridge the rights of property owners in how they choose to use their property. In making a large company one might put someone who cannot or will not compete out of business, but that is not against the law of nature because he is not physically doing harm to another. The individual is only looking out for his own best interests. Locke said everyone has the right to “do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the law of nature.” As long as he is not abridging the rights of others or taking their property away, and so long as he is not allowing natural resources that others might have used go to waste, than he is within his rights according to Locke.

When our Constitution was originally written, Congress was divided into the two houses, but the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the states, not by the people. Locke would not like this idea very much. He felt that the legislature must be chosen by the will of the people; although the state legislatures should have been elected by the people, it was too distant for Locke. He would have preferred the system we have today whereby both houses are elected directly by the people. He would also not like the idea of the electoral college, where again, the people vote for people who vote for the president. As the system is set up right now, a presidential candidate might not get a plurality of the popular vote, but could still be elected due to the system of the electoral college. These systems allow for a subjugation of the will of the people. They create a way for the system to function without the approval of its subjects. Locke made clear, as I will show later, that the people are the supreme law of the land and their will is paramount. For example, Locke said, “they must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves, or their deputies.” Here for example the government would be unable to function because in Locke’s eyes it has no right to lay taxes.

This is not to say that Locke would have only bad things to say about our governmental system. He would also very much approve of some of the things that we have done, and many of the things our forefathers attempted, whether they worked or not. As I said in the second paragraph, it seems that the executive branch is gaining the upper hand on the legislative branch. In the Constitution itself, the attempt was made to make the legislative more powerful than the presidency. For example, the Congress has the power to impeach the President, but the President cannot hinder the actions of Congress, except to veto laws. Congress does have the power to override his veto and enact a law anyway, all they need is a two-thirds vote.

Locke wrote a chapter on the legislative, executive, and the federative powers, this closely resembles our own government. Locke wanted the government to have separate “branches,” one vested with the power to make laws and another vested with the power of upholding them. He felt that when the same people have both the power to make the laws and the power to enforce them, it gives the individual the sense of being above the law; by separating these powers he made the legislature subject to their own laws. He wrote, “And because it may be to great a temptation to human frailty apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its’ making and execution, to their own private advantage...” This is the equivalent of our executive and legislative branches. Locke would be very pleased with the setup we have chosen, and might even be pleasantly delighted with the addition of the Judicial branch for it further protected the people from tyranny by making the individuals that enforce the law not the same as the ones that interpret them; for they may be apt to interpret in ways that would help them and not help others.

In his chapter on subordination of power, Locke also made the point that the people are always supreme to the legislature. Although the legislative branch is the supreme power in government, and their laws can span the nation, they are at will only by the people. They are there to serve the publics needs, when the people feel they have not performed their will, they are to have the right to oust them from power. He said, “there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still 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.” Our Congressmen and Senators must continually run for office to maintain the people’s vote. At any time if the people feel that they are not being listened to they can vote out their representative. Locke would be very pleased with that system.

In cases when a sudden emergency requires an act of Congress, the President of the United States is entrusted with the duty of calling the Congress back into session. Although the legislature is ultimately supreme, this is one instance where the executive must assert control on the legislative. This is one of the main ideas of Locke’s chapter on the subornation of power. Locke said “The power of assembling and dismissing the legislative, placed in the executive, gives not the executive a superiority over it...” This is definitely an idea the framers of our government took directly from Locke.

Locke wrote “though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty, to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself...” He felt that although in a state of nature you had perfect freedom, one of the things you could not do was to harm your own person. This would lead me to believe that Locke would agree with many of the controversial laws of today. Many people argue that drug laws should be abolished and all drug use should be made legal. Locke would agree insofar as the drug did not harm the individual. Once it reaches the point of being a drug like crack that one touch can kill you, he would definitely be for laws restricting it. He did say “yet he has not liberty to destroy himself...” The grey area would be drugs like marijuana that have not been proven to be very harmful to the individual when it is not abused. Locke would probably oppose laws banning this for it would block that perfect freedom.

Home Outdoors Various School Projects Rat Babies Wacky Test Results Contact Kevin McMahon