The National Governments & The Community of Nations

Because life in the state of nature is fraught with peril, Locke wrote, man was

. . . willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

In other words, Locke agreed with Hobbes that government was necessary to rescue humankind from the state of nature, but not because the state of nature was a horrible and dangerous place to be escaped at all cost. In Locke’s view, when the people agreed to become subject to governmental authority, not only did they expect their government to provide stability and order, but they also expected it to protect their rights and liberties. The purpose of government, then, was to provide enough protection of life, liberty, and property that individuals could enjoy them.

There are two significant implications of Locke’s “essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government” that are worth noting. First, by turning Hobbes’ argument on its head, Locke argued that because the people were the source of government’s power in the first instance, the people remained the source of governmental power even after it was established. The notion of popular sovereignty (that power was vested in the people) was lent greater intellectual credibility.

Second, if the people were the source of the government’s authority, it followed that the government was accountable to the people. Consequently, political leaders were just as obligated to obey the laws of society as the people were. More importantly, Locke argued that the government could only legitimately exercise its authority so long as it protected the inalienable individual rights of the people. If government ever acted “contrary to their trust,” the people were justified in taking action against it.

Today, Locke’s writings are recognized as a source of some of the most important contributions to political philosophy. His emphasis on popular sovereignty and individual rights was groundbreaking. In the American context, Locke more than any other single individual helped answer the questions raised at the beginning of this lesson about the origins of governmental power, its uses and justification. In his writings, Locke spoke of “life, liberty, and property,” a phrase which was modified only slightly by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (emphasis added). So profound is Locke’s influence on American political thought that one author has called Locke the “massive national cliché” in America.²³

But governmental power in the United States is not simply derived from the people, it is outlined and established in a written document, created and assented to by the people themselves. The document outlines the origins, scope, and limits of governmental power. It also establishes the means by which leaders are chosen and held accountable. Rules and guidelines are also established that apply equally to political leaders and citizens alike. Extraordinarily, it provides mechanisms by which the people can fundamentally alter or even completely redesign their political system.

The United States Constitution is the longest surviving constitution in the world. Many other nations have written constitutions that outline the origins of government power, the relationship between the people and their leaders, how power ought to be exercised, and how government can be held accountable by the people. While written constitutions seem quite ordinary to us today, such a document was a new idea in the late 1700s. And many nations today still exist without clearly defined, recorded guidelines and rules for their political systems. In these nations there is consistently more controversy about the source of legitimate political authority, the proper role of government, and the rationale for government force.

^23. Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1955), 140.