Locke's Key

     One of the fascinating elements of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is the way in which it essentially inverts the absolutist monarchal philosophy of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.
     Leviathan makes deliberate assumptions about the God-given right of the king to dictate law for all people within his kingdom. Locke, however, proposes that this model is basically upside-down. Rather than assuming the divine right of the monarch to rule, Locke states that the people, as individuals, should be allowed to govern themselves, willfully participating in a system of limited government meant for the benefit of all.
     One of the rather fascinating differences between Hobbes and Locke is the difference in writing style and quality. While this logically shouldn't affect the actual content of their work, Hobbes' writing simply comes off as being less intelligent than Locke's by a longshot. Throughout Leviathan, Hobbes writes in long, complicated, and often-unclear sentences. Worse, his argument is quite literally hypocritical. He claims that argumentative writing (especially with elements such as metaphor) is a crime of sorts, yet he himself commits this crime with Leviathan itself. The cliché "do as I say, not as I do" seems to apply. Hobbes seems paranoid and frightened, writing more from a place of fear (fear of the great unknown power of the populous) rather than reason.
     Locke, on the other hand, writes in clear prose, with obviously well-thought-out reasoning. He does still work with assumptions (the assumption that all men are imbued with the personal right of property of self, as opposed to the monarch's divine right to rule), however, he supports these assumptions with a foundation of clear reasoning based on observation and what most would call "common sense."
     In my opinion, most modern readers of Hobbes will undoubtedly feel the need to question his words; most modern readers of Locke will find little to disagree with.

A Man Outside the Law

A monarch who transcends the limits of the Law is a startling concept, especially if he is given divine right to stand above the rest and pass judgement.  If one is given to believe either Hobbes or Locke (though Locke would disprove of such a monarch), the people will have chosen--or at the very least agreed--to put themselves in this man's power. His influence includes the right to punish as "an aspect of the sovereign's right to make war on his enemies: to punish belongs to 'that absolute power of life and death,'" which seems to put our prince on level with a god--a decider of  right and wrong, life and death (Foucault, 48).   The people have created their own judge and executioner:  "A PUNISHMENT is an evil inflicted by public authority on him that hath done or omitted that which is judged by the same authority to be a transgression of the law" (Hobbes, 203).  This authority, however, answers to none but the Almighty (as a divine sovereign) and is given free reign of whim and fancy if he should decide to ignore this or that moral notion of propriety.

What should happen, then, if a prince were to become tyrant and take advantage of his immunity--assuming of course, the heavenly power which enthroned him does not deem it fit to strike him down?  Modern thinkers would demand his removal, and Locke would agree.  Yet, "there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects," because that would be going back on their word!  What mortal group could think of disposing a god appointed by God, anyway?  Even Locke concedes that revolutions are rare; if frequent, our textbooks would not print their glorious deeds in bold.  The Enlightened philosopher believes "people are not so easily got out of their old forms as some are apt to suggest," and fall into a sort of Stockholm Syndrome with their pompous leader (Locke, 234).  Certainly, a complete reform is not necessary for "every little mismanagement in public affairs," but the divine monarch does not have even this to fear (235).  His "mismanagements" cannot be questioned and his decisions absolute.  If lightning does not strike him from the sky, his judgement must be just.

John Locke: Everything Is Better On Paper

I really like John Locke's theory of how government should work. It reflects the will of people as well as protects them from themselves. It keeps society running in a civil, impartial way. And when it's compared to ideologies like Hobbes', it fills me with a patriotic pride that just reeks of eagles and freedom.At the time it was written, it was probably a perfectly viable form of government, however it seems like it would be limited in a modern society due to its scope.

It's rather similar to Communism in this respect. It seems as though it would work really fantastically on a small scale, but as you add more and more people to the equation it becomes more and more unstable. On a small scale you could get every person together and have all of them come to an agreement on how they are to be governed. Every one could explicitly consent to a social contract. But after so many people, having everyone manually agree to a social contract becomes unfeasible. Granted, this might be alleviated by dividing the large group into smaller groups, but then the actual will of the people is diluted by continued re-interpretation.

So while the idea is a very good one that holds very real merits, it also contains very real flaws that make it almost as unrealistic as Hobbes' absolutist monarchy.