These post is actually notes taken from Listening to Justice Harvard with Michael Sandel episode 3, a great journey

of the philosophy behind the government and the ethics of the right thing to do, highly recommended for anyone to watch it in its entirety. You may be also interested in John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690)

John Locke is widely known as the Father of Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a "long train of abuses." Such was Locke's influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton ... I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences". Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence.

Natural laws in a state of nature The natural laws are derived from a State of Nature. State of nature is the time before the government. Locke believes Humans are born free and equal beings, there is no natural hierarchy. (Although there is a differences between state of liberty and state of nature. Liberty is conventional i.e. subject to definition by government) Under the Law of Nature a person is not free to take the life and property of others, nor are you free to take your own life or sell yourself into slavery. This view Locke derived this law from the perspective where humans are subject to one Omnipotent and infinitely wise maker. Therefore considering the property rights that God has to us. The Argument is the property rights of God vs yourself, where God granted you yours. Quote

For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and finitely wise maker, they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his not one another's pleasure. John Locke Therefore Locke's definition of free is restricted by the natural granted unalienable rights. Quote The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone:and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. John Locke An everyday example of unalienable or a non transferable right would be airline ticket that you bought has some restrictions where you cant trade them away. Likewise Locke defines the right to your life, freedom. We cannot take our own life nor can be self ourselves into slavery. These rights were granted by the all omnipotent creator to us as unalienable rights. Here it may be of interest to point out this is where Locke ideology deviates from libertarians, where the libertarian view hold that we as a individual has the sole right to ourselves. Locke, argued that private property arose even when there was no government Quote ...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of this body, and the work of this hands, we may say, are properly his. John Locke From the now established idea that we own ourselves albeit that right is unalienable, and there is property in our persons, Locke argues that whatever labor we do, I.e fruits of our labor therefore belongs to us, thus property rights comes to being when we mix our labor with the resources in the state of nature(before government). Quote Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature has provided, and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it property. John Locke

Locke also considers resource availability with the important provision, where he states that only you can claim private ownership in cases where the resource is available in plenty for others for common use. Quote For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. John Locke Then Locke goes on to state that the land we cultivates and encloses to produce goods belong in right to the person where justifiably we mixed our labor with the land, I.e. the farmer who produces potatoes not only has the right to the fruits of his labor but the land that is enclosed and cultivated. Quote As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common. John Locke Locke idea of unalienable rights is where the libertarian view differs, where the libertarian views believe that a person owns the sole rights to him/herself and therefore has the right to do what ever he or she wants, ie: take his life or self self into slavery. The fundamental libertarian views of property rights comes directly from Locke in that we not only own ourselves and the fruits of our labor, but also the land that we enclose and cultivate or hunt to gather the fruits of our labor in the state of nature (state of nature is defined as in the absence of government or before human agreed to live in a group with human made laws, or civil society). Open Discussion A case in example of the final frontier of the state of nature and of the rights to our fruits of labor. Intellectual property rights. On the onset of the outbreak of Aids in Africa an American pharmaceutical company came up with the antiretroviral, and who's price tag was far too expensive for the poor in Africa. South Africa stood up and said they would disregard the patent laws in the United States, and doing so we can buy a generic version of the Aids antiretroviral to a fraction of the price from a Indian company. The US company sued the South African government for infringement of patent rights on their Intellectual Property, where they invested there labor and property into coming

up with the drug, they argued on having a licensing fee. Finally the US company gave way. But opened new disputes into IP law and International borders. A audience Member argues that John Locke's philosophy of state of nature and property rights fits in with European colonization of North America. N.America was not as a whole enclosed by the native Americans by the state of nature Native Americans did not have the in whole the property rights to the continent of North America. Counter Argument is native Americans as hunter gathers didn't enclose the land with pickets and fences, but by Locke's argument when the native Americans where foraging and hunting ie, using the land does that not been the land is being used and in a way enclosed (metaphorically). Yet another counter argument is the concept of common land common property, resource left for others to be used before claiming ownership. We or any person cannot appropriate land that was being used by group of people as a common property. Also you cant take land unless there is land left for other. How does our Natural laws effect the powers of Governments If the right to private property is natural not conventional, meaning its something that we acquire even before we agree to government how does that right constraint what a legitimate government can do. When wee enter into civil society (group of people living under some form of laws) by consent by agreement to be governed by majority by Human laws leaving the state of nature. By Locke's philosophy those Human law's are only legitimate if they respect the natural laws, our natural rights our unalienable, rights to Life Liberty and Property. No parliament or legislator how democratic its credentials can legitimately violate our natural rights. These idea's limits the power of the government over the individual, this idea that government which is created for end of preservation of property, respect to life and Liberty is so limited gladdens the hearts of Libertarians. Even so the question arises what counts as a persons property and what counts as Life and Liberty and counts as respecting the rights of life and liberty. Here Locke's states that what counts as ones property and what counts as respecting life and liberty is to be decided by the government, which represents the majority. Some arguably one can say that Locke's contradicts himself on that particular point. In short Locke beliefs on natural laws.

 That we have some unalienable rights namely Life Liberty and the right to the fruits of our labor in the state of Nature. We also have the right to the land that we enclose to produce labor. Any government should be restricted by theses natural laws that man posses, any human laws produced should respect our unalienable rights to life liberty and property. Government should define what amounts to respecting life and liberty and what amounts to private property. Part 2 - Locke's Philosophy on Consent Since consent is a important question for formation of government out of state of nature, and John Locke is one of the great Philosopher's of consent A legitimate government is a government founded on consent. The state of nature is the condition we decide to leave to form the government in general consent. Why? There are some inconveniences in the state of nature. The man inconvenience is that everyone is the enforcer and executor of the law of nature. If someone violate the law of nature, anyone's rights, that person becomes a aggressor and therefore we can punish him or accordingly kill him. In which case, stealing is a violation and we, I as a individual or you for the third party can go after a thief who stole, since the thief is in violation of natural law of property. In such a system there is differences in gradation of justice. Often people would over extent there rights of prosecuting thus creating tension and insecurity (in our unalienable rights to life liberty and property). Quote"One may destroy a man who makes war upon him... for the same reason that he may kill a wold or a lion; because such men... have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him, whenever he falls into their power." John Locke The state of nature although looking very benign with everyone free with natural laws to govern soon turns into a fierce and insecure world filled with violence, and to overcome and escape this insecurity we agree or give active consent to live in group or civil society. and create a government. Everyone who enters this society consents that the majority makes the laws, majority elects a legislature which creates human laws where natural laws are inadequate. Even here the majority made laws should not be in violation of the unalienable Natural laws. In consenting these rights to the majority the question arises how much power does the majority have i.e. how limited is the government created by consent.

So the question arises if the majority taxes the minority without the consent of the minority, that would that not be in violation of the unalienable rights of the minority? Quote "the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent" John LockeQuote "For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society, it necessary supposes and requires that people should have property." John Locke To answer the question Locke argues the main purpose men enter into society, government is to defend the fundamental right to defend their property. Quote "Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs..." John Locke Here the "law if the community" is the general consent agreed upon in entering civil society Quote "Hence it is a mistake to think, that the supreme or legislative power... can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of the at pleasure." John Locke An important note is one the one hand Locke says the government cannot take your property at pleasure or our natural right to property, but then what counts as property is not natural but conventional. Meaning the government would define what amounts to property. Quote "...Governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them" John Locke What Locke is saying is property is a natural right in one sense i.e. we have a fundamental and unalienable right to property and conventional in that their be property, that the institution of property exists and the be respected by the government. So an arbitrary taking of the property

would be a violation of the Natural Laws or Law of nature and would be illegitimate, and yet what counts as property and taking of property is conventional, and that should be defined by the government. Therefore the consent that we gave to live in a civil society from the state of nature involves the charge to support the government. So it is a collective consent that and not a individual consent that we be charged(taxed) in upholding the government and protection we get from it.

Discussion A good question to raise at this point would be what about opting to not live in the civil society and go back to the state of nature? And what about life and military conscription in a civil society? Since the we are living and utilizing the government provided services and resources is actually consenting to live in the civil society when we comes of age then, regardless the taxes should be paid, since we is taking (utilizing government services), if not given it would be in violation of another of Locke's Natural law of property. Since there is not no mans land i.e. no state of nature, it would be hard to opt out of the the consented government. Military conscription is not done is a arbitrary manner, and since the government has to be defended it is excepted since its not arbitrary where people are singled out and send to war, where possibly you may die. As such this argument can be used it is justified since taxation isn't singled out but equal to all.

Conclusion When the government is arbitrary there is no rule of law. If the majority decides upon or promulgates a generally applicable law in fair due process in the legitimate manner be it conscription or taxation then there is no violation. In essence it is important to note that consent to conventional definitions of property, liberty and life given to government, makes Locke's government not that of the limited government that was perceived to be. Therefore it can be said that government is actually limited by the rights we cannot give up, our unalienable rights.

 When we enter into civil society, or government we give a general consent that we should be governed by the laws of the majority, and the government or majority can define what amounts to taking of property, and respecting life and liberty. Main reason to form a government is protect our natural rights, that is rights to property liberty and life, therefore the government requires expenditure for such a enterprise. On these grounds, laws such as conscription and taxation are legitimate given they are not arbitrary.