Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? #4

This is a continuation to the Harvard Justice Lecture series that I’ve been obsessed with writing about and hope to bring everyone into the conversation, deep diving into each theory and philosopher. I’m chipping in my opinions (take with a grain of salt) and I hope everyone chips in theirs as well! Today we’re going to discuss another philosopher, John Locke, about his thoughts on libertarianism.

Life, Liberty, Property

…Is something you’re going to hear a lot in this post, as it’s the essence of Locke’s theory, amongst the spectrum of libertarians and anti-libertarians, Locke would be on the end of the libertarians side. He believes that humans have rights so fundamental, that no institution or government can take it away, humans were born with the nature of rights (life, liberty, property) before governments were even created. Therefore, our fundamental rights are based on the law of nature and a fundamental part of ourselves, no one can take it away from us, nor can we take it away from them.

If you recall, Lock'e’s reason is slightly different yet somewhat similar to Robert Nozick’s, that we looked in episode 3, the idea that government paternalist and moral legislation are violating our fundamental rights by telling us what to do. Using the seatbelt example once more, libertarians would protest such a mandatory law for all passengers to wear seatbelts, despite their purpose of trying to ensure our safety. “It’s about us wanting to do it, not others telling us to do it”. On the other hand, Locke believes that since everyone has a right to life, liberty and property, he wanted to explore the possibility of owning private property without consent or the presence of legislation; given the fact that after claiming the private property (land), there is enough for others.

But, I want to raise the question, by offering your labour in a land, you now technically have the rights to the land (given that there’s enough for others), is it an act of violating the rights of those who came by before you, whether that’d be your employers or the people who claimed the land in the first place? To me, we live in a society, and with society, that comes with consent and total agreement to give up your rights to complete life, liberty, property, and leave it to the hands of government and for us to follow the legislations are that supposed to grant us maximum rights for a society to function. Locke also believes that, although the nature of rights persists even in a society, the rights to life, liberty, property are also for governments to decide and define. Pause. I am totally confused, and I’m not sure if you’re with me as well. That to me is makes no sense because how can us, according to Locke, be born with the nature of rights but once placed in a society, it’s suddenly defined and decided by the government? So actually, we don’t have the nature of rights any more, after giving our consent to enter into a society? What is Locke’s perception of a legitimate government?

What is Consent?

Oh… Buckle up because consent is such a wide and disputable idea that I can debate about for hours. But we’re here to focus on Locke, to him, legitimate governments are created on the premise that those who want to join a government have given their consent, and it’s because of the nature of rights, it is necessary to establish police forces and legal system to maintain conduct amongst all the people who Locke claims have the nature of rights, and are all aggressors. Without the presence of legislatures, it’d be absolute chaos, if someone had come after you, violating your nature of rights, you can absolutely kill them, as self-defence. This, is the inconveniences mentioned of the nature of rights, according to Locke.

Taking in everything that’s been said by Locke, it’s incredibly conflicting to balance consent to join a civil society, for legislature to maintain social discipline and also consider the fundamental natural rights that Locke emphasizes on. How I approach this dilemma is from the beginning: Looking at the fact that the group of citizens has come to an agreement, consented to the fact that they will join a civil society, it is important that you then follow the legislation of that community, or why else would you stay there?

To me, consenting to an action/actions means you are stepping back from the steering wheel of the vehicle, allowing your government to take control. Not so much to the point where they are able to steer the wheel 270 degrees and crash the car, but you’re not the driver any more. If we return to the example in episode 3, of the debate whether the rich should be taxed to be redistributed to the poor, in a hypothetical situation where the government does legislate people with an income higher than a certain number to be taxed higher to redistribute the wealth to poor people, I would immediately consider Locke’s nature of rights and treat that as violating the property rights of a person. Though, the point where Locke and I may not see eye to eye is the difference between arbitrary takings from majority agreement on the promulgation of a law, essentially if the public majority promulgate a law of taxation on the rich, then it would be permissible. It isn’t yanking Elon Musk’s money forcibly, but by majority agreement to distribute the wealth Musk has made in the market. I have a rather strong stance on the taxation argument that I have talked about in my previous episode, so I wouldn’t go in depth about it. So to settle this once and for all, I’ll leave you with this question: Do YOU think the rich should be taxed?

These lectures get deeper and deeper, more and more confusing! To be honest, I have to rewatch the same 30 seconds of crucial concepts at least 4-5 times to process the information, summarize it in a paragraph and make up my mind about it. Phew, it’s been exhausting but I hope you had enjoyed Locke’s indecisive, philosophical personality because it’s certainly taken me on a roll and I hope to continue this series soon.

Thanks for reading, and see you all in a bit.

-Winnie 18/09/2022