John Locke on the dissolution of government and how it relates to America today
I have been working my way through John Locke’s ‘Second Treatise of Government’ in between working, blogging, and living a normal life and this morning before heading off to work I read a passage which I found to be quite interesting considering the political climate today.
John Locke was a philosopher held in high regard by the Founding Fathers who felt that government operated at the consent of the governed. Sound familiar? It ought to for Thomas Jefferson drew upon the writings of John Locke when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. What Thomas Jefferson wrote at that time was not new philosophy, but rather a reaffirmation of natural rights as laid out by John Locke and others who came before Thomas Jefferson.
Because John Locke believed that a society created a government by its own will and consent to carry out the will and protection of the people in that society he also believed the people had the right to change the government when it was no longer conducive or sympathetic to the will of the people. Again, this should sound familiar.
In Chapter XIX of the ‘Second Treatise’ John Locke spoke of this dissolution of government and laid out the reasons by which a government might be dissolved. The first reason is obvious; a government may be dissolved by the conquest of a foreign nation, but he also went on to state that a government could also be dissolved from within. He then went on to list the four ways which could lead to this dissolution of the government by the usurpation of the person entrusted with the public trust.
And this is where we get to the quote which inspired me to write this post, this is what he wrote:
Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince, is evident; because he, having the force, treasure and offices of the state to employ, and often persuading himself, or being flattered by others, that as supreme magistrate he is uncapable of controul; he alone is in a condition to make great advances toward such changes, under pretence of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers, as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government: whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative, without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest.
What he was saying all those years ago is this: The prince (in our case the president) has the force of the treasury and other offices of government at his disposal, and because he may feel as if he is above the law he feels he can use the law to terrorize and suppress his opponents by labeling them seditious and as enemies to the government.
So how does this quote relate to politics in America today? The answer is quite obvious to me, and I think it should be obvious to anybody who has been following the actions and the words of both Barack Obama and the Democrats in the Congress.
We all remember the now infamous right wing extremist report which Janet Napolitano and the Obama regime released shortly after rising to power in 2008. That report claimed that people who oppose the president’s agenda, as well as those who served in the military, were people who needed to be watched. What was this if it was not an attempt to label political opponents and military figures as seditious enemies of the state? What is this if it is not an attempt to terrify or suppress opposers, as John Locke stated?
But, of course, that was just the beginning. John Locke mentioned the treasury and the other offices of the government and so we must examine this as well. Barack Obama has used the IRS to target his political opponents, and of course we also have the NSA spying program, both of which are being used to “terrify or suppress” all opposition to the president.
But it does not end here and we need look no further than the government shutdown and the rhetoric and demagoguery coming from the president and his party. People who oppose the president have basically been called extremists, suicide bombers, terrorists, and hostage takers.
What is this if it is not, as John Locke warned about, an attempt to portray political opponents as enemies of the state? John Locke states that this will be done under pretense of lawful authority and that is what we are seeing today and that is how his words relate to America today.
John Locke made the claim that this is nothing but a dissolution of government from within and we are seeing this play out before our very eyes, our constitutional republic is being dissolved as we watch it fall into ruins under lawful authority, and he was also right when he claimed that this was no better than a dissolution of government due to foreign conquest. It matters not who conquers us, only that we are conquered.
America's Watchtower 
Locke is theoretically of interest, but the guy you want to focus on is James Madison.
LikeLike
I have read Madison and the Federalist Papers, now I am focusing on those whom the founders read.
LikeLike
“The 5000 Year Leap” is an excellent start. But, I suspect you’ve already read that.
BTW, were you able to check out my book. I mentioned it several months ago. Anyway….
LikeLike
I have not read the ‘5000 Year Leap’ but it is on my list. I never did check out your book, I am sorry. Where can I find it again?
LikeLike
Locke and Jefferson. Two of my favorites. That is some great morning reading. If a middle class electrician is doing and understanding this stuff (please take that as a compliment) you would think that a law school trained politician would know some of this stuff too. We need to get back to the fundamentals in politics.
LikeLike
No offense taken, I agree with you. If average Americans can take the time to read this stuff there is no excuse for our “leaders” not to understand the founding principles but of course they are not interested in our history. They are only interested in their power.
LikeLike
Enjoyed your post very much.
The Founders were brilliant because they were willing to learn from Locke, Montesquieu, et. al. political philosophers and the political lessons of history. Their perspicacity and wisdom alone permitted them to forge the greatest plan of free government ever devised. But, what they also learned and well-understood is that government’s insatiable desire to expand its power would eventually be the foundational cause of the Constitution’s unraveling and the Republic’s dissolution.
Understanding the corruptibility of Man, the Founders studiously laid out a system of checks & balances, co-equality between the States and the Federal Government, and a system of separation of powers within the federal apparatus. But even with that, not one Framer asserted his belief in the perpetuity of the Republic. For them, it was perpetual only insofar as the parties to the Contract (Constitution) fully abided by the terms of that contract. Knowing that the Constitutional Contract would be eventually violated, they offered up remedies and principles which are every bit as relevant today as they were then: amending the Constitution to strengthen it, civil disobedience, nullification, secession, rebellion.
At this juncture, for me the nationwide indications are crystal clear that this deeply divided country is as close to civil war, rebellion, secession and dissolution as we were in 1860–an entirely predictable scenario upon which we should all seriously reflect and for which we should all soberly and deliberately prepare. Unduly negative? I don’t think the Framers would be in disagreement at all.
LikeLike
I don’t think the framers would disagree with what you wrote, in fact they knew it could come to this if less than honest men got into power. Sadly we have reached the point in American where the people do not seem to understand that the politicians work for us and they do not understand the founding. Because of this too many people don’t understand what the relationship between the states and the federal government is supposed to be and they have basically been blended into one. As so we have lost this important check on the Federal government.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
LikeLike
Thanks again!
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
A learned man in The 17’s knew his political philosphies, because he was trained in the Latin classics first. Today it is the rare person that undertakes this type of education. With the internet it is easier to read these classics and find commentaries.
LikeLike
For Steve Dennis,
“A Patriot’s Call to Action”. Cheapest if ordered from Xlibris 888-795-4274. But, it can be snagged on Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well.
LikeLike
Thanks, I wrote it down this time on my book list so I won’t forget again.
LikeLike
Thanks, Dennis. Since it was published in July, for me it has become increasingly more relevant. At one point I thought I was, perhaps, pushing too hard. But, the way events are unfolding, I may not have been pushing hard enuf. Anyway, would appreciate your candid feedback at some point.
If only we fully understood how powerful We the People really are and how invincible we would be surely be with nationwide organization/coordination and a clear, UNpolitically correct understanding of our authority and aware of the remedies outlined by our Founders. Wow!
LikeLike
No problem, I think you are right. It has probably become even more relevant they way things are going. If Obama uses the 14th amendment to lift the debt ceiling on his own we will be facing a full blown constitutional crisis.
LikeLike
I remember studying about him, a significant Social Contract Theorist: Social Contract 1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
2. an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole. (That’s what you’re talking about, and hows it’s being destroyed/corrupted). Note: ‘voluntary agreement’ = today is mindless conditioning.
As you state Steve this tyrannical acting gov. has been stripping away the Contract (Billy Clinton used the IRS as an attack dog too – the skull & boner’s haven’t helped either).
“For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition.” Explains why the usurpers have been ‘dumbing down’ and encouraging each generation to be more ‘childish and perverted’ rather than becoming mature, godly adult men and women.
“Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, sounds like you have done quite a bit of reading on Locke. Good stuff!
LikeLike
Okay so we all know from polling (every man, woman, child and invertebrate has been polled it seems) that the public broadly supports the Dems on the gov’t shut down / healthcare circus. And we kinda know that they support the GOP on the debt ceiling issue if they manage to frame the argument as being about “fiscal responsibility” and spending etc.
So theoretically the first battle should have been settled in the Dems favour and the second one in the GOP’s favour. The war playing out in a 1 – 1 draw.
Theoretically. Because an interesting thing may very well happen on the way to next month’s circus.
The budget debacle (in which polling shows the Dems should win the battle for popular opinion) is STILL not resolved and the debt ceiling fight is about to start in earnest.
Thus it seems that the two battles will now become one MEGA battle (revolving around both issues) in which the winner takes all.
This could be VERY interesting. Mainly because just as the public supports the Dems on the budget / shut down issue, they broadly support the GOP on the debt ceiling issue. So if the two fights turn into one BIG fight, who will the public end up supporting?
This battle is turning into a winner-takes-all Super Bowl of political warfare.
Boehner has made it clear that he wanted to avoid the shut down confrontation (which he knew was a loser in terms of public opinion) in order to save his ammo for the debt ceiling crisis, which is he thinks he can win. And he may kinda sorta get what he wants now as the shut down / ACA fight carries on so long that it merges with the Debt Ceiling fight.
So who will win this showdown?
Will the Dem’s be able to make this mega-confrontation all about the gov’t shut down & ACA stuff and win, or will the GOP manage to grab the narrative and make the fight all about the debt ceiling / supposed “fiscal responsibility” and win this gloves-off political cage fight?
With mid-term elections just round the corner,the stakes couldn’t be higher. The team that wins this mega-fight will triumph in the mid-term elections, and the one that loses this stand-off loses in the mid-terms. Control of the House and Senate will be probably be decided this month.
Maybe.
LikeLike
I think you are right and these two issues are going to come together and be solved at the same time and it is anyone’s guess how this will play out. I disagree with you only on the amount of support the Democrats have in the polls on the shutdown issue. While more people blame the Republicans I think the polls are closer than you make them sound, and if the Democrats keep using this over the top rhetoric it might come back to hurt them.
LikeLike
Given the ignorant electorate and a huge piece of it being increasingly dependent upon government handouts, the Republic is in serious jeopardy. There’s a better than even chance the Progressives will prevail in the end. I underscore “in the end”. What will most certainly follow will be the dissolution of the union. More and more States are understanding that union at ANY price is self-destructive folly. As currently constituted, the union isn’t something to blindly celebrate.
LikeLike
I fear you are right, we are at a tipping point with so many people feeling as if there is nothing wrong with living off the government. It is a mindset that will not easily be changed as the lure of “free” money is too good to pass up.
LikeLike