226 Notes - Locke [ 1 ]

1. 226 Notes - Locke [1] John Locke - 1632-1704

2. 226 Notes - Locke [2] • Political Power: a Right of making Laws (with Penalties including Death) - “all this only for the Public Good” • [Note the claim that it is a matter of a “right” - not a natural phenomenon; note also that the “for the Public Good” bit is a debatable addition ... we can take it that rulers claim, and are pretty generally recognized as having the “right” to make and enforce laws. But whether they even can use it really for “public good” needs to be discussed, not just assumed. • It may be tentatively assumed that they ought to use it for the public good!]

3. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [3] • Locke’s State of Nature • - (1) “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit - without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man” • - (2) “within the bounds of the Law of Nature” • Question: What is the force of these “bounds”? • Does Locke mean that people generally obey them? Or only that they should? • (3) Equality: all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal (without Subordination or Subjection) • [Note: if there are no political institutions, then can’t, by definition, be any political ‘subordination’. But what about within some nonpolitical organization?]

4. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [4] • Why Hobbes is wrong about the State of Nature • 1. How do they in fact disagree? • - not on the question of whether there is a “Law of Nature”. • As we saw, Hobbes definitely believes there is (and what’s more, as we’ll see, that it’s the same as Locke’s in the end) • -> what they disagree on is whether this “law of nature” has any clout - that is, whether people’s appreciation, such as it is, of the logic of this law is enough to make them at least reasonably peaceable. • Hobbes says No, Locke says Yes.

5. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [5] • Why Hobbes is wrong about the State of Nature • Here’s what Hobbes is wrong about • - he hugely underestimates two things: • (a) the power of “iteration” (continued future plays of PD etc) • [suppose the PD is played over and over indefinitely with the same partner. • What’s rational now? Every time you Defect, you lose the benefits of cooperation • After a few dozen plays, you get the idea! • [The plausibly rational strategy is “Tit for Tat” ...] • (b) the power of morals - even if we don’t assume that morality is wired-in, as Aquinas did....

6. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [6] • 2. Analysis: • For Hobbes, the main problem is with “covenant” • Covenant is the second of the following three Kinds of Transactions/Contracts (analysis here due to DeJasay) • Type Problem? • 1. “Spot” - not particularly • 2. “Half-Forward” - Yes • 3. “Fully Forward” - Somewhat, not much • Note: Contracts with Enforcers are of type (3) • Many important human arrangements are of the first and third types; covenant is important, but is by no means everything • Important question: can we shore up covenant with fully-forward arrangements, as hinted above?

7. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [7] • 3. Morality: • Set of Rules with No Centralized Enforcement • Everybody “enforces” (or better, ‘reinforces’, in the psychologist’s sense: negatively, by calling people names, avoiding them in future; positively, by rewarding them, complimenting them, etc.) • Hobbes overlooked (or underestimated) the resources of morality. • Which he needs anyway, as we saw. • Reasonable conclusion: A State of Nature could probably function at least moderately well without a State. This is Locke’s characterization. • - This changes the picture, for unless SofN is always Worse than Governed State, Hobbes’ argument for the State doesn’t go through.

8. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [8] • Locke’s “Law of Nature” - our “bounds”: • “Reason, which is that Law, teaches Mankind that it has a Law of Nature to govern it: “being all equal and independent, No one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty or Possessions” • Q1: Interpretation - Which is basic? • Answer: Liberty (= Possessions, including of oneself) • [Reminder]: Political Liberalism- government is to be exclusively devoted to the common good, where that good is determined by the people whose good is being promoted. • [new]: Political Libertarianism: The view that our sole fundamental right is the right to liberty (that is, the basic right to pursue our own interests, as we please - observing this right on the part of all others. Cf. Hobbes’ Law II.)

9. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [9] • Rights: Negative vs. Positive • Rights in general: Person A has the right, against person B, to do x = B has a duty to restrict his activities in relation to A’s doing x at will, in ways advantageous to A • Two different modes of restriction: • 1. Negative: B must refrain from preventing/interfering with A’s doing x • ->Negative rights require others not to act in certain ways. They can be satisfied by doing nothing (e.g. sleeping) • 2. Positive: B must do something to enable A to do x, if A can’t do x unaided (or by the purely voluntary assistance of others) • -> Positive rights require that we do something • For Short: • Negative: right that others refrain • Positive: right that others help • - observing this right on the part of all others. Cf. Hobbes’ Law II.

10. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [10] • Example: The “Right to Life” • Negative: Right that others not kill you • Positive: Right that others help keep you alive, if they can and you wouldn’t otherwise be able to stay alive. - This could involve right to Rescue, Medical Assistance, Food, Shelter .. • - necessarily brings up budget: How Much do we do for A? • - Negative has a natural budget: Zero - what we do for A may be Nothing. (But if you really want to murder, rob, rape, cheat, etc., then compliance has a cost: you forego such benefits. But this cost is variable - it all depends on particular interests and temperaments.)

11. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [11] • Priority of Negative Rights • Note that Negative without Positive makes sense (prima facie); Positive without Negative does not. [Can I have the duty to cure you but no duty not to kill you?? Negative rights in that sense are logically prior.] • Lockean Rights: Life, Health, Liberty, Property • But positive or negative ones? Answer: basically negative. • - Self-Ownership the basic idea: YOUR life, YOUR health, YOUR liberty, YOUR property • - These would be undercut by Locke’s Theological idea (“all children of God, here at his pleasure”) • - That idea (as we saw in the case of Aquinas) is unacceptable. • - Can we reduce them all to one idea? • - Liberty = Property -- it’s the same idea: i.e., Libertarianism

12. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [12] • Property rights = Right to do what you want [= Liberty] with item x • Consider the case where x = you. Say, your hands, your mouth, your brain Liberty = doing what you want • -> Doing what you want is using things, viz., parts of yourself • [note: much more about Property, a few slides down....] • Locke’s Rights are Negative • - Why? • - Because positive rights inherently conflict with General Liberty Rights • - All rights restrict Liberty (that’s what they’re for). However, liberty rights restrict it by the other person’s liberty

13. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [13] • Foundations: Why adopt the “Libertarian” view? • 2 views: • (1) Hobbesian: each person is better off this way • (2) Theological/Metaphysical, etc.: some entity outside of ourselves wants us to be that way. • (But why would it? • In the case where it doesn’t have a mind (e.g., “Nature”), what does it even mean to say that it would??) • 1) The Hobbesian Foundational Argument for Locke’s view: • - Less restriction than the libertarian one is No restriction. At that point, so-called “rights” cease to be any benefit to anyone. • - Might more restriction than that be justified? No: any maldistribution of liberty creates enemies - “Disharmony”. Hobbes’ First Law supports his second one ....

14. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [14] • NOTE: In Locke’s first Treatise (which we don’t read) he says: • “God hath not left one Man so to the Mercy of another that he may starve him if he please: God ... has given no one ... such a Property ... but that he has given his needy Brother a Right to the Surplusage of his Goods; so that it cannot justly be denyed him, when his pressing Wants call for it.” • This is at least prima facie inconsistent with the Law of Nature as Locke states it.... • How heavily does it depend on Theology???

15. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [15] • The question of modern government: Can we do better with positive rights? • - Positive rights impose costs on some (e.g., the capable, the productive, the healthy, etc.) in order to benefit others (the unfortunate, the incompetent, the unproductive, the sick, etc.) - and hence defy the 2nd Hobbesian “law” • - Contractarianism justifies this only if the benefit to yourself of having all others obligated to supply you with those things more than compensates for the cost to you of supplying it to them. • - for many, the likelihood of that is fairly low, especially if • - You make an agreement with some others (not all) to bind themselves to supply it to you, say on condition that you do something for them (such as, pay them)

16. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [16] • 2) Locke’s answer: “Men are all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker” (All are “Servants of one Sovereign Master” - “his Property” - “made to last during his, not one another's Pleasure • ->Why this is the wrong answer: • - Note how the fact that God is supposed to be our “maker” is what • would make him our owner. But the law of nature says that the maker of x is the owner of x. The law is prior to the alleged theological fact.

17. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [17] • A Side Note on Theology • - Religion and its relation to morals and politics • Theological arguments say: • (1) some fact about God • is such that • (2) some moral/political conclusion follows from it • Question: is the idea that (2) depends on (1)? • Answer: No.

18. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [18] • ‘God’ = a (minded) being who is • (a) superduper Powerful, and • (b) superduper Good • Why would we owe such an entity obedience? • (i) always has the problem why anybody ever does anything god doesn’t “want” him to, since by hypothesis god can do whatever he wants, which includes making people do what he wants them to do (one would think) • (ii) in any case, no religious person will claim that the whole show is just a bit of bullying by the universe’s SuperCop • (iii) Thus it has to be (b) that does the biz • Re (b): the question is: in what does the goodness of god consist?

19. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [19] • The answer has to be provided by the ethical theoryof the believer • (Note: it can’t be provided “by god” because you have to know whom to ask and the answer is, the guy with properties (a) and (b) above, getting you back to square one.) • -> which leaves the question, what is it (the ethical theory of the believer) founded on? • The answer has to be: something or other that has nothing to do with gods. • conclusion: all religious appeals in ethics and politics areabsolutely pointless • They are a Fifth Wheel ...

20. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [20] • Punishment • - Administering the Law of Nature • - in the State of Nature, every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that Law to such a Degree, as may hinder its Violation (the Law of Nature “would be in vain, if no body had a Power to Execute it”) [same as Hobbes] • Reparation and Restraint - the only reasons justifying punishment • Offenders are “dangerous to Mankind”; punishment is to protect us from them • - In addition to a right of punishment common to him with other Men, victims have a particular Right to seek Reparation from offenders • - And any other Person who finds it just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the Offender, so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered

21. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [21] • Punishment (continued) • Problems with people having no external judges etc: • (1) it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases • (2) Ill Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others • (3) hence nothing but Confusion and Disorder will follow • Locke agrees: “Civil Government is the proper Remedy for the Inconveniences of the State of Nature, which must certainly be Great”

22. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [22] • But (Locke thinks) the Hobbesian political solution is no good: • (1) Absolute Monarchs are but Men • (2) if Government is to Remedy those Evils, How much better than the State of Nature is it if one Man ... has absolute power? • To the same question we asked about Hobbes: were people ever in the “State of Nature”, he replies that “..all Men are naturally in that State, and remain so, till by their own Consents they make themselves Members of some Politick Society”

23. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [23] • The State of War - “a settled Design, upon another Man’s Life” • 1. The Fundamental Law of Nature -Man being to be preserved, • 2. “destroying one who makes War .. is like killing a Lion” - Such Men are not under the ties of the Common Law of Reason [= Hobbes] • 3. If A tries to get B into A’s Absolute Power -> A makes war on B -> it is Lawful for a Man to kill a Thief • [so storeowners may keep guns to protect themselves?] • (....and if a thief, then an Absolute Monarch) • 4. >> The “plain difference” between State of Nature and State of War: • (1) SoN: Peace, Good Will, Mutual Assistance, Preservation - vs. • (2) War: Enmity, Malice, Violence and Mutual Destruction • 5. When the fighting is over, the State of War ceases in Society: “there is remedy of appeal for past injury, and to prevent future harm”. But • > no such appeal in the S of N -- no Laws or Judges with Authority • ... so War once begun, continues .. a “great reason” for Civil Society • [comment: Why?? Note, e.g., that international wars do end, often]

24. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [24] • Slavery • Man is Naturally free ... with only the Law of Nature for his Rule • The Liberty of Man in Society, is to be under only Legislative Power, established, by consent, in the Common-wealth • Freedom of Men under government, is, to have a standing Rule to live by, common to all, made by the Legislative Power .. and A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not • [Is this trivial? If isn’t covered by the law, it isn’t forbidden by it?] • -> But it’s not. The rule could be: Anything not allowed is forbidden. It’s only the Liberal who says: Anything not forbidden is allowed!] • Freedom from Absolute, Arbitrary Power is necessary to Man’s Preservation - who foregoes it, forfeits his Preservation and Life

25. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [25] • Property • Defined: • A Owns X = A has the right to do whatever A pleases with x • A has the Right to do x -> Others may not interfere with A’s doing x ... thus Property is the right to exclude). • BUT (says Locke:) “God has given the Earth to Mankind in common” • [Q: How does Locke know this? • A: because God is a good guy, right? • Q: Why wouldn’t the “good guys” give it, say, only to the • pool-players among us? • Or the Jews? - Or everybody except the Jews? or ...] • Locke’s Question: How, if it’s all Commons, can any one ever come to have a Property in any thing? - one without “express Compact of all the Commoners”?

26. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [26] • Locke’s answer: • a) Theological version: God gives us reason to make use of it to the best advantage • b) Secular version: • (1) every person, A, has a Property in A’s own Person. This no Body else has any Right to [By virtue of L of N] • (2) The Labour of A’s Body & theWork of his Hands are A’s. • (3) If A “removes x out of the State of Nature” and hath “mixed his Labour with x”, then A has • (4) joined to it something that is his own, • -> (5) this maketh x A’s Property (Principle: “For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to”)

27. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [27] • >> That Labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something -- so they become his private right • Question: Why? (Why does all of a thing that I added something to become mine??) • Nozick’s Question: • “... but why isn’t mixing what I own with what I don’t own a way of losing wha I own rather than a way of gaining what I don’t own? • “If I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so that its molecules ... mingle evenly through the sea, do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice?” • [Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 175]

28. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [28] • Should we think that “the consent of all Mankind” was necessary to make them his? • Locke claims not: • “If such a consent as that was necessary, Man had starved, notwithstanding the Plenty God had given him”. • [See next slides: Without Property , the Common is of no use. ] • Distributive Justice a la Locke • [as deduced from his Law of Nature] • [next slide...]

29. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [29] • Reminder: A owns x = A gets to do what A wants with x • 1. Original Acquisition: x belongs to A if A uses x, where x is previously unowned [Or: A makes x out of y, and y is previously unowned; or A comes to possession of y via Exchange] • 2. Exchange: If A owns x and B owns y, A and B’s agreement to exchange is sufficient [also gift] • 3. Rectification: If A stole x from B, then B, C, D, ... may force A to return x to B. • Note that just distribution on this view has nothing to do with (a) needs, as such, or (b) proportions, such as equality

30. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [30] • Limits on Original Acquisition • 1. May we take “as much as we will”? • Locke says no: “God has given us all things richly - But how far? • answer: To Enjoy. • = “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils” • “so much he may by his labour fix a Property in.” Beyond this, is “more than his share” • But How much is that?? Consider the person who simply has to have six beach condos - five won’t do .. Who would decide this? • [Liberalism’s is: “we” do. But that doesn’t settle the issue, for what should “we” decide, when A and B disagree?]

31. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [31] • 2. The “Lockean Proviso”: the foregoing applies, • “... at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others” • [Note; it is not clear whether Locke meant this as a literal “proviso” - that is, as a necessary condition for acquisition to be legitimate] • Claim: “Nor was this appropriation [of land] any prejudice to any other Man, since there was still enough, and as good left” • Questions about the The “Lockean Proviso”: [which says that first-comers may acquire as much as they can use

32. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [32] • Questions about the Proviso (whatever its status): • 1. Which “others”? • a) Everyone in the near neighborhood? • b) absolutely all? • c) In the future as well as the present? • 2. If the amount to be divided is finite, and the # in (a) tends toward infinity, then nobody could have anything • 3. What is the criterion of ‘enough and as good’? • -> same amount as A takes?? • -> equally productive? • -> of what?? • - all these questions are unanswerable

33. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [33] • 4. Natural Resources: Are they worth anything at all? • [the right answer is: No. We’ll see Bastiat on this, later] • - if not, there is no distributive problem • - There is only the need to protect the liberties of everyone • - including the first comers whose rights are at issue • Locke notes that one acre of cultivated land in Sussex is worth 100 or 1000 in “the wilds of America” • The difference is due to (intelligently expended) labor • Question: might the difference made by labor be such that the “others” are better off by virtue of A’s having exclusive ownership? • [answer: certainly!] • note: see Narveson, “The Lockean Proviso” on the course website

34. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [34] • The Commons: Why? • Commons: there is a group, G, such that everyone in it is a joint owner of X. • So (in principle), nothing can be done to X without the consent of every member of G. • If “God gave the World to Men in Common” , then all men are members of G, and X is the whole world • -> but “he gave it them for their benefit” - hence, for “the use of the Industrious and Rational” -- not to “the Fancy or Covetousness of the Quarrelsome and Contentious” • [How does Locke know that? Because God’s got such good taste?] • >> Claim: subduing or cultivating the Earth, and having Dominion, we see are joined together. “The one gave Title to the other.” • [Note: If this is true, then is Socialism out the window?]

35. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [35] • >> Importance of Labor: “a thousand acres in the uncultivated waste of America ... will yield the wretched inhabitants as many conveniences of life as ten acres of equally fertile land in Devonshire where they are well cultivated ...” • “that of the Products of the Earth useful to the Life of Man 9/10 are the effects of labour : nay .. in most of them 99/100 are wholly to be put on the account of labour” • [Make that 100%? • - Or is it even a matter of percentages??] • The Earth is Not a Commons • proof:

36. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [36] • 1. We may not assume that “God” had anything to do with it • [as shown previously] • 2. Moral rules concern our relations to each other (not to “nature”) • 3. Those rules are man-made: a set of rules “legislated”, “promulgated”, and enforced by humans concerning their actions in relation to each other. • 4. Nobody owns anything prior to human use and arrangements. • [because ‘owns’ is a normative term ...] • [The idea that things are “just naturally ours” contradicts the basic Lockean/libertarian idea: we are free beings, not beholden to others.] • Therefore:- Natural Resources simply are -- they do not “belong” to anyone, in themselves.

37. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [37] • Money • - a “lasting thing” that by mutual consent Men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable, Supports of Life. • - money gives them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. .. • “It is plain, that Men have agreed to disproportionate and unequal Possession of the Earth, • - they having by a tacit and voluntary consent found out a way, how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” • The central idea of Classical Liberalism is that that’s enough to make it OK! • i.e., that other people may not intervene with force to prevent or undo exchanges meeting those conditions....

38. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [38] • Why is this “plain”?? • [Or, as some critics (such as C. B. MacPherson) would claim, is it only bourgeois Englishmen who have thus “agreed”?] • Note that the central feature of money is that it is a medium of voluntary exchange • The idea is that Money got by force and fraud is not yours • All other exchanges employing money are prima facie legitimate • These exchanges ensure that • a) both parties are better off • while the Law of Nature requires that • b) nobody else is worse off • due to the exchange • That’s why that’s enough to make it OK! • i.e., that other people may not intervene with force to prevent or undo exchanges meeting those conditions....

39. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [39] • Parental Power (The Family) • - Paternal = Maternal power (via Initial Acquisition) • - The Power of Parents over their Children - arises from the Duty to take care of their Off-spring, during the imperfect state of Childhood • [Why???] • - To inform the Mind, and govern the Actions of their yet ignorant Nonage, till Reason shall take its place .. • Law: the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper Interest, • - prescribes no farther than for the general Good of those under it • - The end of Law is to preserve and enlarge Freedom • - Liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others • - which requires Law - [moral, yes; but legal??] • - and not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another

40. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [40] • When the Father quits his Care of his children, he loses his power over them - has nopower “over their Lives, Good, or Liberty once arrived at years of discretion” • - Fathers cannot dispossess Mothers of this right, nor can any Man discharge his Son from honouring her that bore him • Children owe honour , respect and gratitude - But all these give no right to make Laws over him from whom they are owing

41. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [41] • The general problem: infants are (a) helpless, and (b) products of the activities of two adults. Why doesn’t the latter give those adults full power over infants? • Maybe the answer is that it does... But as infants mature, they become rational, free beings, and thus have the rights of such beings. • Finding the proper mix in between is the challenge ... how much authority to allow parents over their children? (And how much to allow other people over children that aren’t those other people’s...)

42. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [42] Of Political or Civil Society • Q: Why political society? • “Civil Government is the proper Remedy for the Inconveniences of the State of Nature, which must certainly be Great” • “Strong Obligations of Necessity, Convenience, and Inclination drive us into Society” • - Domestic “society” comes first. • Political Society begins when the power to punish is given to the Community - by settled standing Rules, the same to all Parties

43. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [43] • Absolute Monarchy • (“which by some Men is counted the only Government in the World” - a dig at Hobbes), • is inconsistent with Civil Society • - For the end of Civil Society, being to remedy those inconveniences of the State of nature, which follow from being Judge in his own Case • - those who insist on being so are still in the state of Nature • - Every Absolute Prince is so re his subjects (“no Appeal lies open to any one, who may fairly, and indifferently, and with Authority decide what may be suffered from the Prince”) • - if it be asked, what Security is there in such a State, against the Violence and Oppression of this Absolute Ruler? The very Question can scarce be born ... • - when [people] perceive, that they have no Appeal on Earth against any harm they may receive from him, they are apt .. to take care as soon as they can to have that Safety and Security in Civil Society, for which it was first instituted ...

44. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [44] • Beginning of Political Societies • - No one can be put out of the S of N without his own Consent • - one divests himself of Natural Liberty only by agreeing with other Men to join into a Community • - (“for their comfortable, safe, peaceable living in secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it” • - This any number of men may do, because it injures not the Freedom of the rest • ...

45. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [45] • Democracy • - When any number have so consented they make one Body Politic, wherein the Majority have a Right to conclude the rest. • (Why? .. “It is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority ...” • - For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason, be received, as the act of the whole, nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: But such a consent is next impossible ever to be had • >> Majority of the Community shall be decisive, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority • [Note: It can’t be less, can it? ... For if it were, then proposed Law L and proposed Law Not-L could both pass]

46. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [46] • Tacit (Implicit) Consent (remember our lecture on Socrates??) • No problem if there is express Consent [but when is that??] • But, what constitutes tacit Consent? Locke’s answer: living under that Government’s protection • >> “It would be a direct Contradiction, for any one, to enter into Society with others for the securing and regulating of Property: And yet to suppose his Property is exempt from the Jurisdiction of that Government” • [And what if the government confiscates his property for arbitrary reasons?]

47. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [47] • Reach of Assent • Submission via property. Once he sells (to anybody willing to buy...), he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other Commonwealth, or to agree with others to begin a new one . • >> Whereas he, that has once, by actual Agreement, and any express Declaration, given his Consent to be of any Commonweal, is perpetually obliged to remain unalterably a Subject to it [!] • >> Submitting to the Laws of any Country, and enjoying Privileges and Protection under them, makes not a Man a Member of that Society - Foreigners, living all their Lives under another Government ... do not thereby come to be Subjects or Members of that Commonwealth. Only express Promise and Compact can do that ... • [Note: the effect of this is to make a State into an Association]

48. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [48] • The Ends of Political Society and Government • Why will a rational person part with his Freedom? “obvious Answer”: The Enjoyment of it is “uncertain” • >> The great and chief end of Commonwealth ... is the Preservation of their Property • The Three Great Problems with State of Nature: • The state of Nature fails to do this because it lacks: • * 1. settled, known Law, to decide all Controversies between them ... • * 2. known and indifferent Judges, with Authority to settle all differences • * 3. power to back and support the Sentence • Thus they “take Sanctuary under the established Laws of Government, and therein seek the Preservation of their Property”

49. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [49] • The Two Powers we “give up”: • (1) of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the Preservation of himself [=Hobbes’ right of nature...] • (2) Punishing -- instead he “engages his natural force ... to assist the Executive Power of the Society” • >> only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself his Liberty and Property

50. 226 Notes 3 - Locke [50] • Of the Extent of the Legislative Power • First : Legislative power; As the first and fundamental natural Law, which is to govern even the Legislative itself, is the preservation of the Society, and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it “This .. is sacred and unalterable in the hands where the Community have once placed it; • Monopoly: >> No Edict of any other Body has the force and obligation of a Law • [We should ask: Why not??] • [One possible answer is that, by definition, the government is the ultimate political power in a society. - Yet notice that it is it only by our say-so, according to Locke. But if I make a deal with you, why doesn’t that have the very same force??]