John Locke described Sir Robert Filmers origins of political power

John Locke described Sir Robert Filmers origins of political power as nothing more than all government is an absolute monarchy that rules by divine right inherited from Adam and that no man is born free (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p. 218). Locke’s views were that all government is limited in its power and exists only by the consent of the governed. Whereas Filmer's view is that no man is born free, Locke believed every man is born free.

Locke describes that state of nature as not a place in the distant past but something that can exist everywhere and at all times. All people are naturally in the state of nature and remain there until they consent to form into a political society. This state of nature can exist inside a civil society if the common judge is rendered ineffectual. For example, two people traveling on the king's highway are in effect in a state of nature, with no common judge to settle their differences (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p. 219). Another realm that leaves people back into a state of nature in the area of international relations. Every society is in the state of nature with all other societies. We have international groups such as the United Nations, but by and large, nation-states live in a state of nature with each other.

The state of nature is man is at his most free but also at his most vulnerable. In this state, he has no law to follow and live off the things he produces for himself. He is the judge and protector of his own life and property. Locke states that a state of nature cannot be endured because men being the judges are biased to their own interests (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p.2020). A third party is needed for a fair outcome.

We can leave a state of nature anytime we consent to form and live in a political society. Locke’s theory is that we lived on common land used to grow food, that food turned into an abundance that was sold to other people. In time the creation of money and the development of private property established the need for a civil government to protect the lives and property of the people.

God gave the world to men in common to subdue and gave authority to appropriate. The condition of human life requires labor and material to work on, necessarily introducing private property (Capaldi &Lloyd, 2011, p. 15).

To Locke, the political powers given from society to government are limited. Government was instituted by man to “preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet” (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p. 226). Since the people came together out of a state of nature to form a political society to protect life and property, the legitimate government cannot act contrary to those powers given to it. A government uses the powers given to it to further its interest instead of those of the people is illegitimate (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p. 229).

When a prince or anyone in a position of political power uses that power, contrary to the trust reposed in him by the people, to further his interests at their expense, he makes his good separate from theirs; he separates himself from their community; he puts himself outside their society, into a state of nature with them. Further, by using force against them without authority or right, he places himself in the state of war with them (Strauss & Cropsey, 2006, p. 229).

When a government separates itself from the people, it places itself in a state of nature with them. By using force against them, he moves from a state of nature into a state of war. When this happens, the people have the right to establish new legislation to provide for their safety and security, which, as Locke theorizes is “the ends for which they are in society (Capaldi & Lloyd, 2011, p. 27)

Locke gives the civil magistrate no power to regulate religious beliefs and practices. According to Locke, the care of souls is no business of the government, and the proper use of government is outward force, and true and saving religion comes from the persuasion of the mind (Capaldi & Lloyd, 2011, p. 34).

References

Capaldi, N., & Lloyd, J. G. (2011). The two narratives of political economy. Hoboken, NJ: Scrivener Pub.

Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (2006). History of political philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.