In a critique of United States involvement in Iraqi and Afghani elections, anti-war activist and member of the board of directors for Peace Action Rahul Mahajan exclaimed “[w]e Americans tend to use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in a purely talismanic manner, without attaching any actual meaning to them (2)”Â. With the US military first invading Afghanistan, and then Iraq, in the name, at least partially, of democracy, it may be hard to swallow the thought of Americans just throwing a prized word like ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ around with no real meaning behind it, unfortunately Mahajan is correct in his observation, and it is this correctness that leads to the real question of does America really exhume democracy abroad? Or does the nation simply exude a grand hypocrisy on an even grander scale? With a nation founded on revolution and the philosophies of John Locke, is it possible that America has now moved away from this original platform of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness†to “life as we want you to live it, liberty only as we provide it, and happiness as long as we agree with itâ€Â? If this is true, then, it is important to explore what John Locke would have to say on the issues of law, both for US Citizens and whatever other citizens the US forces its laws upon. In the exploration of his beliefs, along with that of Thomas Hobbes, it can be said that while Hobbes inevitably must settle on a government ruled by laws which are checked by the people, it is John Locke in the Second Treatise of Government who provides the logical and justifiable reasons for the formation of a government by the people, for the people, where the law’s legitimacy rests in the hands of the majority, not the leader of government. In defense of this statement it is necessary to explore, quickly, how Thomas Hobbes establishes, however grudgingly, a rule of law based on the majority. Then, it is important to understand how Locke postulates the same basic idea, but does so much more agreeably. Finally, with this knowledge in hand, it will be necessary to apply it to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan of present day.

The first important component of this exploration of law’s legitimacy comes in the form of Thomas Hobbes’s not-so-absolute sovereign. In his masterpiece The Leviathan Hobbes attempts to legitimize a government ruled by a single man, who possesses absolute power, but ultimately fails to overcome a few flaws that inevitably lead Hobbes to accept a government similar to John Locke’s interpretation. Due to the inherent egoism present in Hobbes’s man, no leader could logically make decisions that are good for everyone, and thus a single ruler would be impossible because the decisions made by this ruler could be seen by the citizens as an act against their right to self-preservation (self-defense). This right of self-preservation is paramount in the theories of Hobbes and thus anytime someone’s preservation comes into attack, they have the justification to take whatever measures to ensure they live on. Because of this right to self-preservation, the only possible way to check an egotistical sovereign is to allow the rest of the egotistical people to have some power. And in fact, Hobbes gives the people a bit of power, when he justifies a revolution on the grounds that the sovereign has put the citizen’s life into danger. And thus, Hobbes must formulate a democracy, for it is the only way in which laws have a chance of being abided by and the only way to ensure the commonwealth will survive.

So Hobbes must advocate a democracy to ensure the survival of his government, but then the next question to answer is what does law mean to Hobbes. Failing to use any notion of natural law as Locke does, the beginnings of law come with the beginnings of civil government. The ultimate goal is the preservation of the government and citizens, who could not ensure preservation in the state of nature, and thus the ultimate goal of law is to keep these selfish and brutish people from hurting each other and providing a mechanism whereby they can work together to mediate conflict and make decisions. Law is the end all and be all in Hobbes’s eyes, as a civil government could never survive without well-established laws being set by the theoretical absolute sovereign or the more realistic democratic majority. While these laws, theoretically, are supposed to go only so far as to uphold the government’s part of the social contract, that fact that Hobbes wants an unquestioned sovereign leads to the very plausible idea that the sovereign can leap his bounds and make any law he sees fit. In the expressed theories of Hobbes, he would say that law is unquestionable, as the absolute sovereign –the only person who can make laws – established it and he knows what is best for the commonwealth. In the implied theories of Hobbes, it could be understood that law is questionable, but since it was established through a democratic process it should be followed by the people simply because they had a voice in creating the law.

While Hobbes’s view on law and government is very different from the inevitable society he establishes, John Locke’s expressed society could very easily be established via his expressed assumptions. Because every step of his theory can be found to line-up reasonably well, it is necessary to begin with the state of nature and work through the process of creating a civil government. John Locke creates a much more optimistic view of the state of nature, when compared to Thomas Hobbes. Whereas Hobbes explains the state of nature is a war of all against all (Kavka 2), Locke takes the approach that the state of nature is a relatively good place to be in, where people actually do have moral rights and obligations (Nature 99). Within this state of nature, people are not just living on instincts and the idea of self-preservation, because even the state of nature has laws. It is John Locke’s notion of natural law that garners him immense interest. Though Locke never spends any time speaking of the particulars of the law of nature, he does elaborate a bit on the duties required by the law of nature when he explains that all people have a duty to preserve themselves and all others (Nature 105). More simply, Locke uses the law of nature to promote his idea of natural rights, rights all people have simply for being alive, a gift from God. These rights, along with the law which governs their use, formulates the moral basis of Locke’s state of nature, and it is these rights and, more importantly, the law of nature which follows people from birth to death, through any civil governments they choose to be a part of. According to Locke, natural law precludes all other law, and therefore exists in all levels of human cooperation. Of course, Locke does place a few restrictions on the reach of natural law. Namely, he explains that since natural law is rational law, only rational people can be expected to follow it. This exception begins to rule people out of the system of natural law, specifically children and those effectively called “deficient in reason†or incompetents (Locke §57-60). It is thus inferred by A. John Simmons that if these people are not expected to follow the law of nature, then these people also lack any natural rights for the natural law to protect (Nature 105). With this in mind, Locke leaves natural law and natural rights to rational adults – much like Hobbes leaves most of his psychology of man to the same group.

Of course this denial of rights to a large quantity of people (namely children) causes a bit of a problem for Locke. Within the original state of nature this would mean a child only has to answer to his or her parents, and no one else. Furthermore, this means that any other person – other than their parents, with whom they do have a rights-based relationship – may treat the child as they see fit. It would almost seem, then, that for the “irrational†people Locke’s state of nature is not necessarily any different from Hobbes’s. Had The Leviathan actually logically come to the absolute sovereign as the only possibility, then it could be said that incompetent people and children would possibly be best off creating their own commonwealth, based on Hobbes’s model. Fortunately, this is not the case, because even the logic of Hobbes equates to a government that is very similar to that described by Locke. Nonetheless, this problem of natural law continues into the civil government. Because natural law still exists within a civil government, and it presupposes all other law, it is paramount to all and must be followed first and foremost (Small 8). What this seems to do for Locke is create a sort of sticky wicket. On one hand, a civil society could create laws that would necessarily protect the natural rights of all persons, including children and the incompetent, but on the other hand natural law must be looked at first and it explains that because a child or an incompetent cannot be expected to follow natural law, they cannot be given any natural rights either. Thus, within a civil society and with the exception of parents (whose relationship with their child is discussed separately of all other relationships), a person can treat a child however they see fit. As paternal power only asks a parent to guide their child, they are not necessarily required to protect their child from the abuses, like a 12-hour workday, of another member of society (Small 8, 28).

So natural law does have a few flaws that could possibly create a moral dilemma within society; but on a whole the idea has been well received, namely because it is just another example of the golden rule. The golden rule contends that one should treat others as they would like to be treated. Locke’s law of nature contends that one should respect the rights of themselves and all others – as they would expect all other people to do as well. With this in mind, it is necessary to leave the flaws of natural law behind in order to explore law in a more universal matter. Firstly, it is important to understand Locke’s position on law, why it exists and what it can do. Locke explains in chapter 6, “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom (§57). It is from this view that Locke establishes his civil government and grants it its abilities. As such, it is necessary to understand what Locke means by freedom. Freedom, in and of itself, is not a natural right, but rather it is the right to exercise one’s natural rights (Small 20). As such, law allows people to be free from the impediment of rights by other members of society. It is this interpretation of law that will be the basis of a discussion of what rights are given up within society, which are kept, and how far a government may go before it becomes illegitimate.

Before looking at how a person enters society, it is necessary to realize that when Locke discusses political power, he means the right to make laws for society and to use the society’s force to execute the law and protect society (Political 121). With that in mind, it is necessary to look at the process of exiting the state of nature and forming (or joining) a civil government. Firstly, the reason, as Locke explains, as to why a person would exit the state of nature and join civil society is “for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it (§95).†Therefore, when people enter into society they give up absolute liberty, and in fact “give up all power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society (§99)â€Â, the end being that which is stated above, namely security. All rights given up, which aren’t the same for every society, are then granted to the government to be used to preserve society and the security of all individuals. Whilst natural law remains, it is then the government’s job to create other laws that allow for more freedom for its citizens. This is where Simmons gets particular on Locke’s statements of consent. It is true, as stated by Locke, that all people give up their right to punish transgressors of natural law (§7), but this would not satisfy the requirements of civil government. If this were the only punishment and enforcement power afforded to the government, as Simmons contends, then the government could only enforce laws, which coincide with natural law (Political 123). Therefore, a government must extend beyond natural rights and natural law, to request specific rights of individuals, which do not relate to moral judgments and are therefore not taken into consideration under natural law. The interesting idea Locke presents here is that it is only through the consent of the individuals to give up these rights that a government is even able to make any laws past what is dictated by nature. Therefore, in this section of civil law (those which extend past natural law), Locke would contend that any law made here is just and only just if it has the consent of the people. Once again, the necessary argument of The Leviathan brings Hobbes and Locke closer together on law. As Locke believes this necessary consent to be a good thing, Hobbes has to agree to the idea in order to allow his commonwealth to continue. Thus, once more, Hobbes and Locke have found agreement in the most unusual of places.

The final theory of Locke that must be examined is the illegitimacy of government, or more specifically, when a government becomes illegitimate. Firstly, when the trust is made between the government and the people, it would (implicitly) outline what rights the people maintain and what rights the government is free to make use of. This trust is the basis of the commonwealth, and as such it should be understood that unless the people granted the government a right within the trust, then it is illegitimate for the government to make use of that power. Furthermore, all the rights the trust gives to the people must be held secure, both from outside attacks as well as attacks from within. Therefore, if a government fails to preserve the rights of its citizens, it is illegitimate. It is these two guidelines for determining illegitimacy, which makes Locke’s social contract so successful. Of course the question of how to determine government illegitimacy still exists, but this is easily answered when we remember that the only legitimate government is one consented to by the people. Therefore, if the people did not give the government a right that it is trying to use, or the people retained a right that the government is denying them, then it is the people’s duty to realize and correct the problem. Remembering a previous statement, law is only made to enhance freedom, then it is clearly evident that Locke’s statements all fit together perfectly – law needs to enhance freedom, a civic law must be in the bounds of the trust (which entails enhancing freedom), and if the government fails in this obligation to meet the trust, thus enhance freedom, then it is no longer legitimate. Furthermore, an important premise of Locke is that if a government has violated the rights of its citizens then it necessarily has declared a state of war on them, which Locke explains denies them civil government, thus placing them back in the state of nature. The actions the individuals then take are in the name of returning themselves and each other to a social contract, which the government forced them out of. While this premise doesn’t seem extremely important, it holds a deep implication for Locke, especially when compared to Hobbes. Namely, Hobbes actually has the idea of oppression and revolt built into his social contract, whereas Locke actually denies the idea that oppression and revolt are part of society. Instead, Locke reverts everyone to the state of nature if they are oppressed, which allows us to completely deny any oppressive authority of our government. And thus, Locke establishes a wonderfully logical chain from a state of nature to a government for the people, by the people, and establishes laws specific duties within society every step of the way.

Now that the views of Hobbes and Locke have been established, it is necessary to remember Rahul Mahajan and his criticism of the American people. Mahajan went on in his article to explain how the US has denied both Afghanistan and Iraq free elections and thus consensual leadership on multiple occasions. Specifically, in June 2002 Afghanistan had their loya jirga, where 1500 delegates met to elect an interim president. Despite US pressures, 800 delegates signed support for Zahir Shah, the exiled monarch. Shah should have won, but instead the US stepped in and postponed the elections a few days while they forced Shah to renounce any meaningful role in the government. Once the assembly resumed, US brought out Hamid Karzai and two unknown candidates (one of which was a woman) to be voted upon, knowing fully that Karzai would win (Mahajan 1). These blatant abuses of democratic and free ideals that were once a part of US policy is presenting a startling trend. While our country was founded upon Locke’s ideals, and while we still claim to represent Locke’s ideals, we have utterly failed in ever truly exhuming these ideals in nations that we have overthrown. The biggest concern we should have with this comes from Locke himself, when he writes “Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent (§95).†In Afghanistan the people consented to Zahir Shah, but got Hamid Karzai; they consented to the laws and decisions of their exiled monarch, but got the laws and decisions of a puppet of the United States. Because of this, their government is not legitimate, and will most likely remain illegitimate, leaving all people of Afghanistan in the state of nature – denying the authority of officials and instead accepting the right of every person to punish any transgressor, as we see in both Iraq and Afghanistan now. It’s interesting to note that even today, roughly three centuries later, Locke’s theories remain overwhelmingly true. Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers understood the truth in Locke’s statements back in the 18^th century, but today – when we should be getting smarter – our leaders seem to deny the truth behind his statements, and because of this are denying the people of Afghanistan and Iraq any ability to be free and to live within a civil government. Perhaps instead of dropping bombs, the US should have dropped copies of the Second Treatise of Government, as this probably would have been more useful to the war torn countries.

It was Hobbes who set the premise, but it was Locke who embraced the truth behind The Leviathan, and it was Locke who gives a very well thought theory on the organization of people into governments. Ever important during his time, during the American Revolution, and even today in the Middle East, Locke’s political theory resides as a timeless artifact to liberal thinking and progression. Even if Americans have begun to deny the ground set forth by Locke, his theories still reign supreme, and hopefully one day world leaders will be able to recognize this again.

Works Cited

Kavka, Gregory S. “Hobbes’s War of All against All.†Morris 1-22.

Mahajan, Rahul. “The Bush Definition of Democracy.†AlterNet 28 September 2004. 2

October 2004 .

Morris, Christopher W., ed. The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes,

Locke, and Rousseau. Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Simmons, A. John. “Locke’s State of Nature.†Morris 97-120.

Simmons, A. John. “Political Consent.†Morris 121-142.

Small, Brad. John Locke: “The Second Treatise on Governmentâ€Â. The

Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series. Houston, TX: Communican,

2001.