Limitations of Governmental Power

John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government” is well established to contain the foundational philosophical principals underlining the creation of the American Republic. The passages below are excerpts from this great work written in 1690. Below the passages are my paraphrases of the principals he teaches in this book.

“It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power to do so, to give anyone or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him [government power] to make a prey of them when he pleases;” John Locke 1690

“For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.” John Locke 1690

Each person owns that which in which they rightfully labor to acquire.

That becomes their property.

People institute government to protect their freedom to their life, liberty, and property.

That government instituted by the common agreement of the people to represent such interests does not have the authority to do what no one can give them the authority to do.

I have no rights to the property or life or liberty of another.

I cannot give up rights I do not have to a government who only gains its authority by the consent of the governed.

Thus it is outside of the bounds of my rights to give to the government the authority to take property from others and do with it what they choose even if they deem it necessary for the good of others no matter how well endowed those people are. Therefore the government can never have such a power without usurping the rights of the people they are entrusted to protect.

Such a government that oversteps its bounds in this manner ought not be trusted.

Worldview Challenge Question

Let's put worldviews to the test. How does a human life gain value? If we are simply evolved animals, is a human life worth no more than the life of a cow? Or do our cognitive abilities rank us as more valuable? If so, is a dolphin then more valuable than a lamb? How about an insect, it’s a living thing. Does it have rights to life? How is it that squashing an insect does not invoke the same moral outrage as ending the life of a human? If the life of a human is priceless and valuable above all other living things, then how did this come about?

The Declaration of Independence declared that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The United Nations manifesto grants that mankind has certain intrinsic rights, but omits any reference to them being God given.

If one rejects the Christian worldview that man is created in the image of God and is thus valuable and ought to be treated with dignity and respect then on what principal and standard do we maintain that humans have value?

Please think about this question and comment as to how your worldview answers the question of human value and rights.