# Locke's Commonwealth
## August 31st, 2020
- THE READING IS DONE! (And with one minute to spare, too)
- "I hope you all had good weekends, folks."
- Some reminders!
- This week, as per usual, we have some discussion posts open and due this week
- If you want to continue a discussion from last week, feel free!
- There's another weekly response, too, also due Friday!
- So, today we'll be doing some brief review of the "State of Nature" from last week, then we'll discuss Locke's new idea of a "commonwealth" that he introduced in last night's reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- So, Locke refers back to the "State of Nature" a few times in our readings, and he tries to imagine what it's like for people who truly lived outside of society - not being raised in a nation and then shipwrecked or anything, but TRULY outside
- Locke's imagined chronology for how this happens seems kinda implausible and hard to verify, so why does Locke spend so much time on it?
- Locke actually answers this in Section 111: we have no record-keeping until societies already existed, and so the state of nature is ESSENTIAL for capturing what it means to be fundamentally human - it may not be a literal, true, historical account, but the state of nature DOES serve to talk about the fundamental acts of humans
- In this sense, the state of nature serves a critical and even radical function of capturing what the essence of human-ness IS
- So, Locke spends the first 5 chapters of his Treatise laying the groundwork for the State of Nature and arguing "this is what human nature is, because X" (using a mix of human reason and Christian revelation), and then uses that foundation in chapters 7-10 to build up his argument for the nature of politics
- "One thing that came up in discussions last week was whether Locke's defense of property rights necessarily means he's defending capitalism - I'd like to draw a distinction that Locke isn't trying to do that here. He's trying to defend a certain political system, not a specific economic one."
- A Lockean liberal-democratic argument could be made for other economic systems as well, although there is a bent towards supporting some sort of free market (which isn't *quite* the same thing as capitalism)
- It *does* seem to be in conflict with Marxist economic ideas, but they actually do both agree on the fundamental human rights of man
- "Remember, Marx was responding VERY specifically to industrial capitalism by counter-proposing his own industrial economic system; Locke was definitely not focused on industrial economics at all"
- Basically, I just want to note that Locke is writing to defend the property rights of people (including aristocrats) against the crown via a political argument, and isn't strictly arguing for one economics implementation of that over another
- "...we could talk about the early chapters for hours, but I think we have to move along to today's reading"
- In chapters 7-8, Locke is very much in the weeds, responding to counter-arguments and doing all this stuff - and then, in Chapters 9-10, he summarizes his main points and really crystallizes what he's getting at, and gives his idea of a legitimate political system a name: "The Commonwealth"
- Several people mentioned Thomas Hobbes in their short assignments, so let's talk about him briefly: Hobbes was an earlier philosopher who, in his work "Leviathan," made his own "State of Nature" argument in SUPPORT of a strong, monarchial government that could punish people when needed
- Hobbes did this by arguing that man, in a state of nature, is fundamentally depraved and "in a state of war of each against all" - and so, to escape this horrendous state of nature, people flee to the "Leviathan" of political authority with all its flaws - "we'll agree to give up anything, just save us from this war!"
- If you've ever read "The Tragedy of the Commons" essay from the 1960s, you'll hear echos of Hobbes's sentiment
- Locke, however, wants to establish the rights of people AGAINST the rights of authority, and so he's motivated to paint a much more benign view of human nature, where people form societies not out of necessity, but out of convenience - society is less amputating a limb and more putting on a bandage
- Now, Locke actually really underplays the idea of an actual social contract; he briefly talks about some "compact" people agree upon, but unlike Hobbes's view, he believed people would try to avoid giving up their rights just for the sake of being in a society
- So, you guys should talk with each other, so here's how we'll go about discussions today
- There's a LOT going on in Chapter 9 (it's where all these claims get pulled together); take a look at just one of those claims that stands out, talk about how they make sense, and connect them back to what Locke talked about in the earlier chapters; how does he build his argument on what came before?
- It may be that he DOESN'T connect it back and is introducing something new without good support
- "Quick clarification: by the 'ends' of political governments, he's talking about the GOALS of government, not it literally ending (although he talks about tht later, too)"
- "...I know that's kinda vague, but see what you come up with in ~10 minutes"
- So, go!
- So, overall Locke lists the inconveniences of being in a state of nature, and says that legitimate societies should get rid of those inconveniences
- In Section 124, Locke says the chief end of government is the preservation of property, and gives 3 reasons the state of nature isn't great for protecting property:
- Lack of a settled, agreed-to law defining what's right and wrong
- Lack of an impartial authority to judge cases between people
- Lack of sufficient authority to enforce punishment on lawbreakers
- In order to form a society, then, that DOES handle these 3 things, people have to give up 2 things in turn:
- Instead of doing whatever they think appropriate (like in the state of nature), people submit to laws made by the society
- Instead of punishing wrongdoers themselves by the "law of nature", he gives up that right of punishment to the society
- So, what connections do we see here between this and previous stuff Locke talked about?
- A fundamental question Locke's trying to answer here in chapter 9 is: why should people form a society?
- Locke says in Chapter 2 that people have to take punishing breakers of the law of nature into their own hands, but Locke also says there that people shouldn't be judges in their own cases (connecting to his point in Chapter 9, Sect. 125)
- In Sections 124-126, Locke talks about what's lacking in the state of nature, and how there are those 3 things the state of nature lacks and societies can provide: settled law, known judges, and public power
- "So, if all of this is set up to defend your property in the broad sense, you get the predictability of having clear laws and some real enforcement power behind them"
- Locke is trying to get away from ARBITRARY power, like monarchies, where they can take things away from people without reason; instead, he wants there to be predictability
- So, that sounds great! What do we lose in the bargain, then? What do we give up in societies?
- First, they give up their absolute liberty, and instead agree to follow the laws of the society (Section 129) "in a manner consistent with the preservation of the individual and the society"
- As the saying goes, "the freedom to swing my arm ends where someone else's nose begins"
- Second, you lose the ability to punish people (Section 130), leaving that up to the state - and the state may not always punish the people you want! They may even tax YOU, or punish you!
- "No one is above the law - not even the king"
- This agreement ONLY makes sense if EVERYONE in the commonwealth does the same thing and gives up their right (Section 130)
- Alright, our time is up, so read Chapter 11-14 and then I'll see you on Wednesday!