John Locke "Two treatises on Civil Government" John Locke's Natural Rights, State Duty according to John Locke, Destination Country according to John Locke and According to Grotius, man is a social-being
Biography of John Locke
John Locke was a great thinker on state and law from England.
John Locke lived in 1632-1704, under the reign of Willem III, whose government was a rather limited Monarchy.
And indeed it is, that the whole teaching of John Locke, especially his teachings on the state and law, is directly related to, and contains a clear and justification of the limited Monarchy rule created by Willem III and his queen Mary.
John Locke's Teachings
John Locke's teaching about the state and law will later be a bridge between thinking about the state and law in the XVII century and thinking about the state and law in the XVIII century.And thus the laws of nature in the eighteenth century underwent a growth and development that was completely different from its original growth and development.This is due to factors that lie outside the object of the real mind, outside the abstract mind.
From John Locke's teachings later, what deserves special attention is his opinion regarding natural human rights that cannot be submitted to society by means of an agreement.
Because the teaching or opinion opens up the possibility of teaching about basic human rights.
Thus in many ways the teachings of John Locke are a continuation of the teachings of the monarchomacons, because this means the imposition of restrictions on state power, for the protection of individual interests.
Regarding his opinion on natural law, John Locke's opinion is still the same as his previous opinions, namely that natural law still has a rational basis for social covenants arising from human rights from natural conditions, but a logical-deductive-mathematical way of thinking has released and replaced with a realistic way of thinking, by showing really the practice of state administration and law.
And this is what then gives rise to new theories such as : patience, distribution of power, teachings about human rights or basic human rights and statutory power exercised by a parliament of people's representatives.
The teachings of John Locke will all affect the thinking of what state and law in the eighteenth century, even further developing in thinking about the state and law in the eighteenth century, not only that, but even in practice.
John Locke's teachings about the state and law are written in his famous book, namely : "Two treatises on Civil Government"
Originally the aim of the flow of natural law was to limit the absolute power of the state (Staats-absolutism) which was created among others by Niccollo Machiavelli and John Bodin.
So in fact this natural law theory is a continuation of the monarchomacons school pioneered by Johannes Althusius.
But the natural law adherents then release theological elements or elements of Godhead, which states that the law is no longer derived from God, but from the natural world, and is based on reason.
So the power of the ruler is no longer derived from God which results in the absolute power of the ruler, but that power is based on natural law, so that the power of the ruler cannot be absolute.
This is, among other things, the subject of John Locke's teaching, which gives rise to a limited government construction. The teaching of Thomas Hobbes actually does not lead to the construction of absolute government, in the sense that everything is still based on natural law norms.
John Locke as a natural law thinker, also based his theory on the human condition in the wild.
And it does think that the state of the wild or natural conditions precedes the existence of the state, and in that state there has been peace and reason as in the state.
This opinion is different from that of Thomas Hobbes, because Thomas Hobbes said that in a natural state there are no rules, there is no peace. So the situation is very different from the state of the country.
Furthermore, according to John Locke, in a state of nature or nature, humans have natural rights, namely natural rights which humans have personally owned.
John Locke's Natural Rights
- The right to live.
- The right to freedom or independence.
- Property rights, rights will have something.
So according to his nature, from birth, human beings have natural rights, natural rights, and what John Locke calls basic rights, or human rights. This is also different from the opinion of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that in a state of free nature, humans do not have any rights.
So by nature humans are born without any rights, these rights will only be obtained after the human being lives as a state.
In this state of nature, or since humans are born according to their nature, they have characteristics, and not rights.
However, John Locke said, in the state of the wild, these human rights cannot be properly exercised, because humans are always overwhelmed by the desire to defend their own interests, so that in the state of the wild there is no legal certainty, so there is order. the law cannot be enforced.
This is already the nature and disposition of humans, and no one can escape from them.
Only difference is there are people who want to defend their interests harshly, while others are subtle or indirectly.
So to guarantee the implementation of these human rights, humans then carry out a community agreement to form a society and then the state. In this agreement, the people gave up their natural rights to society, but not all of them.
This society then appoints a ruler, and to this ruler is then given the authority to protect and guarantee the implementation of these human rights.
But in carrying out this task, the power of the ruler is limited, what limits are the basic rights, meaning that in exercising his power the ruler may not violate basic rights.
State Duty according to John Locke
According to John Locke, the state's duty is to establish and implement natural laws. Natural law here in a broad sense, means that the state not only establishes and implements natural laws, but in making regulations or laws the state must also be guided by natural law.
The characteristic or sign of this natural law is that the application of this law is general and in accordance with reason. Thus, the rules which are not general in nature are not regulations from natural law.
Meanwhile, regulations that are determined arbitrarily are not natural laws, because the general public does not want to obey, and this will only create uncertainty.
So thus the state's duties are :
- Create or establish rules. So in this case the state exercises statutory and legislative powers.
- Carry out the rules that have been determined. This task is actually as important as the first task. This duty also means that if the laws are violated, the State must punish and the consequences of the violation must be eliminated. So here the state's duty is not only to implement regulations, but also to supervise the implementation, the executive and the judiciary.
- Power regulates relations with other states, federations.
These three tasks were later called Trias Politica, which would later be further elaborated and perfected by Montesquieu, in the XVIII century.
Furthermore, in connection with his theory of the division of state power, John Locke discussed the forms of the state.
In this case what is used as the criterion is to whom the statutory power is transferred. This is used as a criterion, because statutory power is the highest power in the state, because it states the will of the state.
Based on the above criteria, the form of the country can be divided into :
- When the statutory power is transferred to one person only, then this country is called a monarchy. the legislation is submitted to
- If the power of several people, or to a council, then this state is called aristocracy.
- If the statutory power is delegated to the whole community or the people, while the government is only implementing it, then this state is called democracy.
John Locke is of the opinion that the highest power becomes statutory power, it cannot be in the hands of the people, that no one has ever seen a general people's deliberation that appoints a king, at most, the most groups. Other than that one must distinguish between the meaning of conversion and choice. God chooses, while the people only convert. And monarchy is the best form.What is the reason ? The reason is history, so the constitutional practice, namely Rome, Rome is known as the best democracy in the whole world, but in the end it also fell under the power of the emperors.What is the reason ? Because in that democracy there is no certainty from the people. This hinders the achievement of the goals of society that have been formed, so that of the State.
Destination Country according to John Locke
The goal of the state according to John Locke is that the people's agreement to form society and furthermore the goal of the state is to maintain and guarantee the implementation of human rights.
And in this community agreement each human being surrenders his natural rights to society, but not all.
What is excluded, if it is not handed over, are those basic rights.
Because according to John Locke, this cannot be separated. It is precisely this guarantee of human rights that is the goal of the state. Even the power of the rulers is limited by these basic rights. So this is what does not allow the ruler's power to be absolute. This is different from the opinion of Thomas Hobbes who stated that the ruler's power must be absolute.
The cause of the difference of opinion between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
- The views of the two scholars are actually not objective. Because their views are based on a premise which is influenced by their respective judgments. Which judgments are actually a result of the condition of society at the time they were alive. Also the state of the government system that he is experiencing, this is very decisive. Because this is precisely what will be explained, justified and given juridical grounds. This is what causes the premise of the two scholars to differ.
At the time of Thomas Hobbes's life the nature of ruling power was absolute, this was both when Thomas Hobbes lived in England under the absolute rule of Charles I, and when he lived in France where he taught Charles II a lesson. This, that is to say, absolute power, was really necessary at that time, because the situation was very chaotic, it needed a concentration of power to be able to overcome it.
So firmly Thomas Hobbes became a defender of the rights of absolutism, especially the rights of the king of England, because Thomas Hobbes considered that such a thing, namely absolute power, was natural.
Therefore, Thomas Hobbes then looks for reasons or grounds to justify his opinion, which in fact only adapts to the circumstances at that time,
This situation is different from the circumstances at the time of John Locke's life. The nature of the ruling power at that time, in England, was no longer absolute because of the emergence of new powers beside the king, namely the parliament.
So at that time the nature of the ruler's power was limited, that is, under the rule of Willem III's government, it was he who created a limited monarchy. And John Locke says that is the true and natural character of kingly power.
So clearly John Locke is to be a defender of the rights of a limited monarchy, especially the rights of the British king Willem III.
Therefore John Locke then looks for reasons or grounds to justify and defend his opinion. - The hypotheses of the two scholars are different. The hypothesis is that humans are in a natural state, humans are in a state of nature, humans are in-abstracto. Thomas Hobbes argues that in the state of the wild, this includes the notion that since man was born, man by nature lives without rights, only his characteristics possess at that time.
Meanwhile, according to John Locke, humans are in a state of free nature, this also includes the notion that since humans are born, humans have rights by nature, namely what are called human rights. - The objectives of the community agreement, so it also means that the objectives of the state, the opinions or teachings of the two scholars are different. If according to Thomas Hobbes the goal is to establish peace. So anything that hinders the creation and maintenance of peace must be eradicated.
Meanwhile, according to John Locke's opinion or teaching, the aim is to guarantee or maintain the implementation of human rights. So things that violate these basic rights must be eradicated. - The nature of the community agreement. The teachings of the two scholars differ. According to the teachings of Thomas Hobbes, the community agreement is direct. This means that people who carry out the agreement directly surrender or relinquish their rights or independence to the king, so that the king is not through society, so that he is not a party to the agreement. Thus the king is not bound by the agreement.
Meanwhile, according to John Locke's teaching, the nature of the community agreement is graded. This means that the people who carry out the agreement hand over their rights (naturally) to the community. Remember that this surrender is not complete. Then the people will hand it over to the king. - Furthermore, although the opinions of the two scholars are the same, namely that the natural state precedes the state of the state, according to Thomas Hobbes, the natural state is always in chaos. Meanwhile, according to John Locke, in this natural state there is peace and reason as in the state of state.
These are among other things that cause the conclusions about the construction or system of government of the two scholars to be different. Thomas Hobbes came to a conclusion about an absolute system of government, whereas John Locke came to a conclusion about a system of limited government.
Meanwhile we also find a big difference between the teachings of Thomas Hobbes and the teachings of Grotius. The differences arise as a result of differences in their views on the basic principles of their teachings, namely humans in a natural state.
According to Grotius, man is a social-being
Compare this opinion with Aristotle opinion. Meanwhile, according to Thomas Hobbes, humans are anti-social creatures.
Thus may we have come to the end of the discussion of the teachings of the great thinkers of the state and the most important laws of the eighteenth century.
There we find the philosophy of law in a modern sense, namely thinking freely about the state and law.
Thus they encounter increasingly clear difficulties.
These difficulties arise because they confuse things that should be logically separated, like the separation between: nature and skirt, law with moral order.
Because that is not the real goal. Because in the practice of this thinking, it is not evident or proven that reason or reason can apply and bind absolutely.
But in the meantime the theory of natural law has continued to develop among the great thinkers of the state and law, and will culminate in the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Because of this development, natural law and ideas about state and law in the XVIII century will have a completely different character from that in the XVII century.
