Political Science

Anonymously published in 1690 by John Locke, the Second Treatise of Civil Government
is a work of political philosophy that explores the nature of the relationship between the
government and the governed along the lines of natural rights and social contract theory.  
Applied to modern day issues in American society, the following are Lockes ideals in so much
as they pertain to present day tax cuts for the rich, the issuance of legislation to ban sexual
explicitness and nudity in public entertainment, and the judicial jump from a three-strike
misdemeanor approach to more swiftly applied and severe punishments.  
     
With regards to the Republican supported policies that favor tax cuts for all income brackets,
including the rich, chapter five of Lockes Second Treatise having to do with property
expresses Lockes views best. In section 27 of that chapter, Locke writes that though the earth,
and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person
this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we
may say, are properly his. Generally meaning, that while all things naturally exist for common
usage and the common good, all men also have the right to individual property, and that
individual property is ultimately defined as anything that is the result of mans own labor.  In this
section, Locke establishes the ground work for private property and, moreover, capitalism.
Further on in section 138 of chapter 11, Locke continues to write that The supreme power
cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent for the preservation
of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily
supposes and requires, that the people should have property.  Underscoring the necessary
protection of private property by the government, Locke says that no part of an individuals
property is to be taken without his own consent by the supreme power, meaning that without
his consent through the legislative body, taxes more or less cannot be imposed.

Once taxes are agreed upon by the legislative body, for the common good of the people, it
follows that Locke would not have be in favor of sweeping tax cuts for everyone because of
Lockes belief in the law of sustenance.  In chapter 5 Locke refers to the picking of apples or
acorns to justify the right to property as long as an individuals own labor was the means of
acquisition.  What Locke continues to explain with that example, however, is that according to
natural law, no one person should be allowed to acquire more than they can actually use.  So that
if someone were to pick too many apples for himself to use, they would spoil unless otherwise
utilized, and that would be an overextension of anyones natural rights of acquisition.  So while
Locke would have been against the excessive, and not consented to, imposition of taxes, he
would have held that the rich would be required to give back to the common wealth more than
those whose usage of property was more limited, and hence not over extensive.
     
In terms of legislation dealing with sexually explicit material in the public entertainment
arena, two notions arise.  The first is that such legislation would be an infringement on the
supreme freedom of all individuals to do as they wish, and the second would be that certain
freedoms are to be restrained for the purpose of preserving the well being of others.  In section 4
of chapter 2 Locke writes that a commonwealth should be a state of equality, wherein all the
power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one man having more than another, but he also writes
in section 134 of chapter 11 that the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even
the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and (as far as will consist with the public
good) of every person in it.  In order to explain how a legislative body is enabled to determine
what is consistent with the public good without infringing on the equal rights of others to enjoy
their own freedoms, Locke puts forth (in section 132 of chapter 10) the idea that in a democracy
where power and jurisdiction are granted equally to everyone, the legislative body is delegated
those powers, and therefore whatever is decided to be in the common wealth is done so in the
name of everyone, and more importantly with their consent.

He also clearly states this in section 22 of chapter 4 as he writes that the liberty of man, in
society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the
commonwealth nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that
legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it . So when it comes to sexual censorship of
public entertainment, it would seem that Locke would not have focused on whether or not he
personally believed that sex should be openly present in the public arena.  He would have
focused, however, on whether or not the legislative body represented the power trusted to it by
the people and whether or not that legislative body thought that such legislation would have been
necessary to preserve the public good of that society.
     
The third modern policy issue to consider in light of Lockes political philosophy is whether
or not Locke would have been in support of doing away with the three strike misdemeanor
policy.  This, in fact, is something that Locke responds to clearly and directly in his text.   In
sections 6 and 7 of chapter 2, Locke writes that being all equal and independent, no one ought
to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions , and that all men may be restrained
from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind.  Establishing the grounds
for just punishment, Locke goes one step further and writes in section 12 of chapter 2 that By
the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will
perhaps be demanded, with death  Locke responds to his own question by writing that  each
transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make
it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.  
While Locke gives a very severe response here, in section 8 of chapter 2 he writes that
 in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call                punishment.

So while Locke makes sure that he provides no foundations for any kind of absolute or arbitrary
power to be excessively used, it is clear that he would be quiet inclined towards a swifter and
more severe imposition of the law, and thereby punishment, in order to deter potential offenders
and preserve the peace of society.
     
While Lockes ideas are over three centuries old, it is an interesting perspective from which
to look at modern day American issues of debate, keeping in mind that it was originally the ideas
of men like Locke that provided the intellectual fundamentals for the foundation of American
society and government.