Natural rights in John Lockes the second treatise on government

0 Comment

As such, everyone is entitled to enforce natural law in order to uphold these rights. Secondly, he purports that as an individual ventures into societal relationship with others, he trades what goods he possesses for goods he does not, and as such forms a reason to formulate methods to facilitate the trade of goods, such as the use of money, since money is non-perishable in contrast with food. As such, when money is injected into the system, individuals may pertain to give up their natural rights in order to be governed by a select group of people who exist solely to protect their welfare and property. These representatives work by introducing a system of laws and rules that expand over the societies they govern, and are in charge of enforcing them. However, they must only adhere to the interests of the societies at large, and hence, are at the complete disposal of the individuals and are subject to replacement at the people’s discretion. Locke thus emphasizes a Laissez Faire style of government which respects tolerance and moral values announced by natural rights than a strict measure of communism or monarchy. His political ideology promotes distinct sense of social awareness and respect by all of natural law. Argument against John Locke’s theories Locke’s focus on individual precedence over societal matters suggests two things. The first pertains to the regulation of civil society in that the people realize a need for preservation of their material belongings such as house and property, a measure they cannot administer individually by way of natural right as that might render their judgement partial and unjust. As such, they resort to giving up their natural rights so a body of executives can adjudicate on their behalf. This is because if individuals resorted to upholding their natural rights themselves against those who wronged them, only the strongest would survive. By letting an executive handle the adjudication for them, the judgement is deemed impartial. Of course, in conjunction with this right, Locke states that every child is born free, independent and pure, a subject of no country or government (Locke 118). However, in order to be respectful of other’s rights he must first attain majority and then make an informed decision as to which community he must partake in, for being part of one would mean his giving up of some natural rights in order to follow the customs of the community. Thus, before he attains that majority, the child is essentially without affiliation, under the care of his father, and rendered stateless in the very state he was born (Klausen 763). This gives rise to patriarchy which defines the child’s governing system resulting from tacit consent. Moreover, Locke suggests that tacit consent is binding on the individual as it forms part of his contract within the community he is born, but as the child grows up into majority, he is allowed to leave the patriarchy to which he has adhered and choose a community to consensually give up his natural rights to. This effectively declares tacit consent as NOT binding. Moreover, Locke’s policy of independence and attainment of natural liberty is only possible if there is