Analysis Of John Locke's Treatise

In this section of Locke’s Treatise, he begins to delve into the reasons for man joining a political society, or government. From the outset, Locke maintains that a government can only be properly established via consent (52). Building upon this, though, Locke begins to posit the reasons why man would give up certain liberties of his natural state. He says this succinctly in the following way: “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into common-wealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property” (66). This property, includes the “preservation of lives, liberties and estates” (66). In other words, man enters into a political system in order to preserve that which he cannot in his own state
The first is an “established, settled and known law, received and allowed by common consent” (66). The second is a judge who is indifferent and unbiased, while the third is the power to properly executed the known law (66).

Anyone with a very basic knowledge of our modern political system in the United States will readily recognize the similarity between Locke’s propositions and the three branches of the current system of government. The legislative branch is tasked with establishing and making known laws. The judicial branch serves to act as an impartial judge, and the executive branch serves to enforce the common laws. Much like his propositions of man’s rights to life, liberty, and property (9), this too makes strong connections to the Constitution.

From this, it seems that Locke is being consistent in his portrayal of man. He sees that man is born in a state of nature which is equal, free, and independent. However, this state of nature is imperfect because it lacks the ability to readily preserve private property. Thus, men enter into commonwealths in order to protect their property which they otherwise could
For Locke, he posits that resources are, in general, for the common use of all people. These resources only become private because of the impossibility to receive the common consent of all. Thus, if the purpose of government is to preserve private property, it raises a strong tension. Is private property, properly understood, primarily tied to man’s state of nature and his individual freedom? Or, is private property, which is naturally intended for the common use of all people, directed toward a kind of common good beyond the needs of the individual? Consequently, this brings up the questions as to how the commonwealth is to establish known laws, with both interpretation and execution. Are the laws of the commonwealth primarily intended to preserve the property of an individual, or is private property best understood as having its roots in common use? Certainly, these ambiguities in Locke’s political thought have left much room for debate. One need not look further than any current political issue stemming from the current governmental system which so heavily hearkens of Locke’s