According to John Locke’s “Second Treaties of Government”,

According to John Locke’s “Second Treaties of Government”,

For the purpose of the paper, we will be assuming that John Locke is wrong and that the indigenous people have or used to have their own property and formed their own political societies amongst themselves. This paper sympathizes with the indigenous person that stated the claim in the resolve for this paper, however argues against the claim in the resolve; “the wrongful appropriation of our land, and the state’s failure to protect our lives, liberty, and estate, the Lockean theory justifies our moral right to engage in armed rebellion for the purpose of overthrowing the governments of Canada and the United States”. This paper will argue that the indigenous people do not have the moral right to engage armed rebellion against its government by counter-arguing the arguments that might be used by the indigenous people. This paper believes that they might use Locke’s theory of the State of War and Law of Nature, forms of consent to an legitimate government authority, and the three restrictions on accumulating property to refute this paper’s stance on the resolve.

This paper will start off by counter-arguing how the claim in the resolve by the indigenous person would have been correct if it had not mention that there had been an established government present in this situation he/she explained. To provide adequate argument in arguing against the claim in the resolve, this paper must first explain three theories from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

The definition for the State of War is “a man uses or declares his intention to use force against another man, with no-one on earth to whom the other can appeal for relief.” (Locke, 19). By that, Locke meant when a man has declared either by words or action that he intends to ends another mans life, he has entered himself into a State of War with the other man. Locke also states “I may destroy a man who makes war on me or has revealed himself as an enemy to my life…because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no rule except that of force and violence…” (Locke, 16). The definition for Law of Nature “men are to be preserved as much as possible” (Locke, 23). From Locke’s rationale, punishing others requires there to actually be a law. Using the State of Nature as a law to enforce the Law of Nature, thus enables individuals to punish each other before any government has been established. If there is no punishment amongst each individual when in a State of War during the period of State of Nature then mankind would not be following the Law of Nature to preserve mankind as much as possible as Locke has stated. The definition for the State of Nature is “men living together according to reason, with no-one on earth who stands above them both and has authority to judge between them” (Locke, 19). To rationalize this theory, which is during the period of State of Nature it means that there is no legitimate political authority established, thus no legitimate judge to decide when someone has broken the law or how it should resolve a dispute among individuals or groups. Consequently, individuals and groups in the State of Nature must be the judge of their own on what is right and wrong. If and when a legitimate government is established, the society is no longer in a State of Nature. Thus the power of each individual to punish and harm each other is then transferred to the government.

The indigenous person might argue that according to John Locke’s theory the State of War and Law of Nature in his Second Treatise of Government, it clearly states that whenever someone takes your property away from you and you have the legitimate right to the property, they automatically enter into a State of War with you. Also using the Law of Nature from Locke’s work, it allows the person whom has their property taken away from them the right to punish those who took it from them. If the indigenous person did not mention that there is a legitimate government establish, and merely stated that an individual or a group of individuals  with no legitimate authority that took his/her property away from them, this paper will then argue for the indigenous person’s claim that they the moral right to engage in an armed rebellion against those whose taken from them and retain what was rightfully theirs.

However, the indigenous person did mention governments’ such as Canada and the United States, and this paper assumes that no one will object to the statement that; Canada and the United States are both legitimate government authorities today. Thus making there a established legitimate government in the society the indigenous person is describing. It then automatically stripes the moral right of the indigenous person to engage in an armed rebellion to  overthrow his/her government in hopes for punishing and retaining what was rightfully theirs away. According to all three of John Locke’s theory in Second Treatise of Government, the indigenous people do not have the legitimate moral right to do what it claims in the resolve for this paper.

Locke’s theory of the State of Nature was vaguely described in Second Treatise of Government, many scholars even those of the indigenous people might argue that the State of Nature also describes those individuals or groups that do not consent to the legitimately established government authority. Thus they choose to still remain in the society without abiding by any or some of the rules implemented by the present government authority and chooses to follow the rules Locke’s stated when a society is in a State of Nature. This paper can not define the exact definition or requirements of State of Nature for John Locke other than what is written in his work, it saddens this paper that the indigenous person might argue otherwise than what is already written very clearly in writing. “If a man owns or enjoys some part of the land under a given government, while that enjoyment lasts he gives his tacit consent to the laws of that government and is obliged to obey them. This holds, whether •the land is the owned property of himself and his heirs for ever, or he only lodges on it for a week. It holds indeed if  he is only [traveling] freely on the highway; and in effect it holds as long as he is merely in the territories of the government in question” (Locke, 119).

For the indigenous person to say that he/she do not perceive themselves as part of the society and will not abide by the rules established by the legitimate government because they do not agree with them and did not explicitly consent to their authority. Then they also have disregarded the fact that by remaining in the society with a legitimate government automatically means they have tacitly consented to the governments implementation of rules. It does not matter whether they agree with the government or not, as long as they are staying on or using  any land under the government’s reign they automatically agree to abide and live under the government’s ruling. The extent of Locke’s theory goes beyond, even when they are just traveling freely on a highway under another country ruled not by their own but by another also means they have tacitly consented to all of the other government’s laws.

 

The last argument the indigenous person might use to morally right their claim in the resolve is by implementing Lockean’s three restrictions of accumulating property in order to state that they have the legitimate right to their property taken by the government. This paper will seek to define the three restrictions stated by Locke.

The first restriction is that “[a]nyone can through his labour come to own as much as he can use in a beneficial way before it spoils; anything beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others” (Locke, 31). Also known as the spoilage proviso, which means that anyone living in the society can accumulate as much property he/she needs or able to use without any of it going to waste. For example, a person accumulating 10 acres of land. However he/she only has the energy or capital to farm 8 acres of it, the other 2 acres are always left empty and could be used by other. That would be wasting  thus defy Locke’s spoilage proviso. The second restriction is that “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (Locke, 27). Also known as the sufficiency proviso and it basically means what it says, anyone is allowed to take from mother nature as much as he/she needs but not more, so others can enjoy it too. The third restriction is that “when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property” (Locke, 27). Anything taken from mother nature can belong to anyone who has out their labour/work into it. For example, a person takes dirt and water from nature and mixes them together to make a bowl. The bowl will then be the property of the person who made it.

This paper believes that the indigenous person would argue that the properties that the government took from them are not fully used, thus they are spoiled and breaking the spoilage proviso. By taking their property away none of it is left of the indigenous people, which then automatically breaks the sufficiency proviso by taking more than enough for their use and detriment of other’s needs. The indigenous people will also argue that the property the government has taken away form them are not theirs because they did not put labour into it, however the indigenous people has. Resulting the right of the property belonging to the indigenous people and not the government. This paper would agree with the indigenous person’s claim if we are not living it the 21st century. These restrictions were written by John Locke in 1690 which is the 17th century. The time between when John Locke wrote the book and now when this paper is assessing the claim, many things have changed and new inventions are introduced.

To address the problem with the first restriction by Locke to be used as an argument for the indigenous person’s moral right to rebel and overthrow the government is a very common item that everyone of us deal with everyday, money. The spoilage proviso can not be applied to anything today, due to the fact that money can be stored and it will not decay or go bad (spoil). The second restriction can also be refuted by the creation of private properties, one may not own or have the opportunity to own land will still be left with other necessities to live and great things in life are able to enjoy. To live and survive in the 21st century, one do not necessary have to own properties. Renting a house to live in will still suffice as being able to live without owning the property. The last restriction does not even stand itself. When the indigenous people are acquiring their property in the first place, many of them had servants do their work. Does that mean the properties belong to the servants? In that case, the indigenous people can not take credit for the labour their servants did as their own. It makes the very existence and legitimacy of the indigenous people’s property ambiguous.

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!