This week I read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) for my online class. Locke’s entire theory of the State of Nature and the State of War were very interesting to me, and I found myself often linking the ideas Locke proposed to their historical and cultural context. Locke’s ideas seem to honor the rights of the individual and prioritize the protection of these rights, but they could also be interpreted as justification for European colonization of the Americas by employing European ideas of individual property and asset ownership. Once I thought about this, it was hard for me to separate the idealized version of society that Locke proposes — equal opportunity for subsistence farming — from the history of America’s legal system, which is basically Locke’s theory in practice.
Central to Locke’s theory of government is the idea of consent rather than coercion. In the Second Treatise on Government, he claims that any person who opts into society relinquishes their right to pass judgement or punish offenders to the state. This touched on an idea I’ve heard a lot while reading books about the American legal system and talking to people in the field. The social contract that is the law gives the state a monopoly on retribution. This seems like a really straightforward idea, but it was something that I hadn’t really thought about so explicitly. Connecting that idea back to its historical context made me think about the fact that the American criminal justice system is a way of preserving slavery, and so “opting into” the society that relinquishes it’s justice system to the government, (which, of course, is always going to be reflective of those in power) wasn’t exactly what happened.
Great analysis of Locke’s philosophy. Interesting how, even though many of these philosophies you are studying seem ethically virtuous, you have pointed out how many of them can be skewed for harmful purposes – such as promoting colonization or preserving slavery through our criminal justice system.
Do you agree with Locke that by opting into society an individual can’t pass judgement on criminals? If the government has full authority over punishment and judgement, doesn’t that create a high risk of corruption, and those manipulating the system to get rid of individuals that they don’t like? On a different note, I don’t fully agree that in a country like the United States (at least ideally) the members of society cannot pass judgement. In our constitution, people standing trial are guaranteed a trial by jury, which would be made up of ordinary citizens who, by nature of being a jury, are passing judgement on an offender to the state. Obviously they wouldn’t be able to carry out the punishment themselves, but they are still passing judgement. Regardless, your connecting of the idea of consent legal system and preserving slavery is very interesting and has given me quite a bit to think about going forward.
I like how you analyzed Locke’s theory and how it applies to U.S. history in order to reveal its faults!