John Locke (1632-1704) was not a political pure liberal. He advocated a welfare state – not a free state. He wanted a government and socio-economic system based upon "moderate" coercion – a legal system and society of mild regulation and redistribution. According to Locke, "need" justifies elements of tyranny. Poor people have certain basic wants and thus they have a right to steal. He thinks the ideal political system should reflect this coercion, fascism, criminality, and tyranny.
According to Locke, "God hath not left one man so to the Mercy of another that he may starve him if he please."* If a person lacks food, or otherwise has needs, he has a right to acquire them by robbing his fellows. Government should facilitate this "redistribution" or thievery.
This is because no man may "justly make use of another’s necessity to force him to become his Vassal."* If a poor person is forced to take a job, merely to avoid starvation, Locke says this reduces him to the status of a slave, which is morally wrong. The state should prevent this via regulation, redistribution, coercion, and fascism.
According to Locke, every man has "a Title to so much of another’s Plenty as will keep him from extreme want where he has no means to subsist otherwise."* To deny him this subsistence is tantamount to murder.
The moral truth, says Locke, is every man has "a Right to the Surplusage of [another’s] Goods so that it cannot be justly denied him while his pressing Wants call for it."* Hence a welfare state based upon regulation and redistribution – based upon coercion, fascism, criminality, and tyranny – is superior to a free state.
----------------------------
* all quotes from Two Treatises of Civil Government, by John Locke, 1690, section 1.42
I have commented at length on this elsewhere. Without using terms such as "Welfare State" and "Fascism" it is true that Locke supported the English Poor Law of his time - and would have considered a state such as 19th century France (which had no Poor Law taxation) to be wrong. From either a Roman or Common Law point of view, the legal thinking of John Locke, on such things as property and rights, is deeply confused.
ReplyDeletePM -- I think Locke is a powerful liberal overall. Really strong in philosophy and politics, compared to his predecessors and rivals. A genius and a saint. Still, a bit weak on various issues compared to the best thinkers of today. No doubt we'll all be seen as VERY flawed by the thinkers 300 years in the future. Even 100.
DeleteWhere have you commented on this elsewhere, Paul? I'd be curious to read it.