John Locke is often cited as a primary source of American ideas.
Locke – though not an American – produced masterful works which would later influence the direction of governments across the western world.
Locke, an Englishman, was born in 1632. Raised by puritan parents, his views were strongly influenced by Calvinism. Furthermore, he spent several years among the Dutch Reformed Church while exiled from his homeland for suspected involvement in the Rye House Plot. He was able to return – after five years of exile – to his homeland after the Glorious Revolt of 1688. This is when his work became widely published.
Locke is best known for the social contract theory. In his seminal work, Two Treatises of Government, you can read the foundational ideas of his theory. Providing a dissenting view against a work entitled Patriarchy by Sir Robert Filmer, Locke argued that all men are born free. Filmer argued that man isn’t born free, but rather is born in subjection to the monarch.
Both men base their arguments on their interpretation of the biblical creation story, but they have very different views. In support of the divine right of kings, Filmer argued that Adam was created a sovereign by birth right. He also contended that this divine right should succeed from generation to generation, and that there should always be a monarch.
Locke took a very different position. Locke argued that Adam was not a natural monarch over all man, but that Adam was only a government to himself and his family. Furthermore, he was only a government to his children while they were too immature to reason.
Bestowed with natural rights, man was subject only to natural law. However, mankind is not a creature that appreciates loneliness. We need to form societies for protection, production and for community. This is where Locke suggested something vastly different from what England had previously done. In the spirit of Protestant Reformation, Locke suggested that mankind should not be ruled by a sovereign. Instead, mankind should enact a covenant with others. Much like we find in the Old Testament, Scotland, Geneva and among the Dutch. This covenant would limit the free exercise of some natural rights, but it would only do so by the consent of the governed. While some rights would be ceded, it would not be because of the power of another. Rather, the government would only have as much power as the people were willing to consent to.
Locke’s idea really is the key to understanding the dilemma we face today with our political division. For conservatives and libertarians, we find it impossible to unify with those who take our natural rights. I suspect that many people chafe at the definition of natural rights given by Locke and our founders. Regardless, the social contract was the best way to provide commonality and unity among men.
The social contract provides unity for two reasons: because it requires a covenant bond and it requires the consent of the governed.
Jeremy Wiggins writes a bi-weekly columnist for The Graham Star. He can be reached via email, jeremywiggins87@gmail.com.