John Locke: Trading Freedom to for Freedom from

John Locke is as good a place as any to start a discussion of democracy. In his first Treatise on Government he refutes the divine right of kings and in the second he lays out the rationale for democratic governments.  He was a powerful influence on Jefferson who had his portrait in his study along with Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, and Galileo.

In the Second Treatise on Government, he makes the case that man in his natural state is free and equal to every other man. Locke states “ men are naturally in . . . a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit . . .”[1] that is in the state of nature they have perfect Freedom To.

Locke then asks, “If man in the state of nature be so free . . . absolute lord of his own person and possessions . . . why will he part with his freedom?”[2]

His answer is “. . . that though in the state of nature he hath such rights, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings, as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure.”[3]

So men form political unions, “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”[4]

Since he has entered this contract as an equal he has an equal say in the matters of governing and since he entered it voluntarily if he is not getting the protection for his property that the contract promises he can opt out at any time. Thus the process is democratic.

However, I want to clarify what exactly he gives up and what exactly he gets with this arrangement.

The function of government is to preserve property; but Locke has a pretty broad definition of what he calls property.  In addition to the physical chattels we customarily call property he adds life and liberty (time). It is the expenditure of his property in all these forms that he gives up to enjoy the security of the group. If he defends his tribe against the tribe across the river he gives over his time, his physical resources (weapons perhaps), and possibly his life. He trades his Freedom To use, however he sees fit, this property, in all its forms, and gives it over to the collective for Freedom From the threat of the enemy host which he is not able to deal with on his own.

So Locke presents to us another continuum for us to consider, and consider we have.

Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a parable on the subject. Roosevelt’s four freedoms split down the middle, two freedom to’s (Speech and Religion) and two freedom from’s (Want and Fear). In high school a classmate who was a member of the John Birch Society said there is no such thing as Freedom From.

This in fact, I would maintain, is the fundamental continuum upon which liberals and libertarians/conservatives disagree. It is the central political argument of our age.

So I am going to leave it for now and give you a chance to consider how you think and perhaps more importantly feel about it.

In the next post I will look at the freedom to/freedom from continuum in the context of context of the make/buy continuum.

---

[1] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter II - Of the State of Nature

[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter IX - Of the Ends of Political Society and Government

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.