The writings of both Locke and Kant on the subject of government are considered two of the founding and formative texts of this country’s foundation. In Second Treatise of Government, Locke investigates the rationalization behind why the three branches of government is a necessity if a civil and just society is to be attained. Although in Toward Perpetual Peace Kant resembles similar attributes to that of a modern democratic viewpoint, Kant refers specifically to the Republic branch when providing justification as to which form of government will have the strongest foundation in building a peaceful and civil society. This paper investigates the views of both philosophers, Locke and Kant, while also presenting one strength and one weakness that Kant may identify in Lock’s account of government. Lastly, I will provide my own reasoning as to why I would not modify Locke’s three powers of government.
When grasping Locke’s account on the necessity of political power, one must first understand the innate state in which all men are in. In the beginning of Second Treatise of Government, Locke traces back to the rulers’ lack of lineage in order to disprove the monarch and “divine” rights—the philosophy that God chose some people to rule the world under His will. Therefore, since there is no divine right, all men are under the laws set by nature (i.e., state of nature). Locke then asserts that, just like gravity and force are a few of the undeniable laws of nature, so are the rights of freedom, equality, independence, life, health, liberty and possessions of the human race (i.e., property). The only way these natural laws can be abandoned, according to Locke, is if “God were to declare clearly and explicitly his wish that some one person be raised above the others and given undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Locke, 3)
In contrast to natural laws, Locke declares that there are also rules that develop from the decision of a legislative body, called positive laws (e.g., speeding tickets, curfews, drinking age), which arise from the political power of a government. The reasoning for positive laws is a that of a few; first being that, although we have unrestricted access to our property and possessions, we don’t necessarily have use of it. Therefore, people might invade your property, and if there are no positive laws set in stone, who can deter chaos from breaking free? Consequently, the people must decide on a branch of government that will protect the property of all, resulting in a civil society. Although natural and positive laws go hand-in-hand, Locke states that natural laws must come first and positive laws should be created in reflection and with the intent to protect the laws of nature.
Locke emphasizes his portrayal of a civil society as a unified population under the power of a governing body thats sole purpose is to protect the property and health, while governing the behavior of all. Locke asserts the first branch, legislative, to be the supreme power of the commonwealth. The legislative powers first and most prominent rule is to create laws which preserve society, while no individual can challenge or pass a law of their own. Additionally, every member of society must abide to the laws created by legislators. These rules are applicable with the understanding that legislators are governing laws that apply equally to all and are solely for the betterment of society. In spite of legislatures being able to create laws at its own will, its important to note that Locke does not think a constant flow of new rules is necessary or even safe. Along these lines, Locke also asserts that there are four things legislators are not allowed to do. One, the legislative branch cannot have arbitrary power over people’s lives. In other words, he or she has only as much freedom and moral power as the law of nature provides, and that amount is equal throughout all of mankind. Secondly, the legislature cannot rule by arbitrary decree—meaning, a sudden, unknown law, cannot be written for personal gain. Thirdly, property may not be taken away from an individual without his or her consent. The entire purpose behind a government is to protect property, so to disobey this rule, would be entirely contradictory of the purpose of a political power. Lastly, the power of making laws cannot be transferred to another individuals’ hands. To make authoritative laws is an honor that the people, law of God, and law of nature decided, and may not be relocated elsewhere.
While the legislative branch creates the laws for the commonwealth, the latter two branches—executive and federative, plays a distinct role in upholding the standard of the commonwealth. The second branch, executive, is in constant progress of enforcing the laws of society to all its members, while the endmost branch, federative, manages the security and interest of the public in relation to foreigners. It is important to note that although these two branches are distinct in their own rights, they are rarely separated and put into the hands of the people. Locke states the reasoning to be, “they might act separately, thus putting force of the public under different commands—and that…would cause disorder and ruin” (Locke, 47). Contrary to the legislative branch not always needing to be active (creating new laws), Locke states that the executive branch must always be enforcing laws, therefore the separation of the two branches is essential. Despite the power of the three branches, it is not to be forgotten that the supreme purpose for a government is solely for the people. Individuals will always hold the power to “ remove or alter the legislature” (Locke, 48) At the end of the day, the community holds all the power.
Alongside John Locke’s philosophy on the need for a political society, Immanuel Kant’s political stance revolves strongly around Republican states being the catalyst for universal peace. In Kant’s, Toward Perpetual Peace, a republican constitution is defined as a “separation of the executive from the legislative power” (Kant, 8) Kant’s main point regarding the republic state arises when diminishing the effectiveness of the state of nature, considering it synonymous to the state of war. Kant states, “The natural state of men is not peaceful co-existence but war—not always open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war” (Kant, 5) Kant supports this idea by stating that since there are no “positive” laws in nature, anyone can become hostile towards another individual, resulting in a state of constant threat and deprivation of security. According to Kant, a republican system can rid individuals of this insecurity towards their neighbors, because everyone’s dependence is on a single common system of law. In other words, because the consent of the people is necessary in making a decision, the united body will most likely consider the personal cost that must be endured when going to war (death, money, destruction of property, etc.) Thus, perpetual peace is favored when the civil constitution is a republican state.
Both John Locke and Immanuel Kant discuss government in theory versus practice, or in other words, what actually happens. From the position of Kant, a weakness in Locke’s account of government surfaces when discussing the lack of separation of the executive and legislative power. According to Locke, “they might act separately, thus putting force of the public under different commands—and that…would cause disorder and ruin” (Locke, 47). Kant would view this as a weakness, simply because a republican state is literally a “separation of the executive power from the legislative” (Kant, 8). The reason why Kant would view this as a weakness is because he sees the separation to provide a clear distinction between the unnecessary need of the actual participation of the people in making laws. Consequently, Kant would view Locke’s lack of separation as a weakness.
Contrarily, Kant viewed some accounts of Locke’s government as a strength. One in specific is Locke’s view on the separation of executive and legislative powers. According to both Kant and Locke, the executive branch is always in progress to enforce, not create, the laws set by the legislative branch. According to Locke, all laws that the legislative branch create, must be synonymous with the united public good of the people in mind. Kant would view this as a strength because he himself also thought that an elected representative legislator is effective, as long as it is sovereign to the will of all the people.
When evaluating John Locke’s exposition of the three branches of government, I find myself not in need of modifying his stance, but rather defending it. Government to me, is a way of protecting the life and liberty of the individual from another individual. Why is this necessary? Because as a civilization, we are not at a point of perpetual peace, and quite honestly, the near future doesn't seem to be nearing it either. The only way we can take steps towards that is by a set structure and plan. Through Locke’s branches of government, structure is accounted for with each branch having a set role. For example, the legislators create laws with the good of all the people in mind, whole the executive branch enforces these laws, and the federative branch responding to foreign powers. A counter argument to Locke’s account would include the idea that people can set rules and regulations for themselves without needing a “higher power” to enforce certain laws, as long as those rules are geared towards a common good. This is an inadequate argument solely because there is no enforcer towards those who’s motives aren’t for the commonwealth. If one lashes out in anger and destroys another’s property, there is no government set to “punish” these individuals and to protect one’s property. As a result, I think Locke’s account on government is not only flawless in its nature, but is still relevant to this day.