0:09 time we
0:12 began to discuss Lock's state of
0:19 property his theory of legitimate
0:22 government which is government based on
0:28 government black believes in certain
0:30 fundamental rights that constrain what
0:33 government can do and he believes that
0:35 those rights are natural
0:39 rights not rights that flow from law or from
0:41 from
0:44 government and so Lock's
0:47 great philosophical experiment is to see
0:50 if he can give an account of how there
0:54 could be a right to private property without
0:55 without
0:59 consent before government and
1:01 legislators arrive on the scene to Define
1:02 Define
1:05 property that's his question that's his
1:08 claim there is a way lock argues to
1:11 create property not just in the things
1:15 we gather and Hunt but in the land
1:18 itself provided there is enough and as
1:19 good left for
1:22 others today I want to turn to the
1:25 question of consent which is Lock's
1:28 second big idea private property is one
1:41 consent people here have been invoking
1:44 the idea of consent since we began since
1:46 the first week you remember when we were talking
1:47 talking
1:49 about pushing the fat man off the bridge
1:51 someone said but he didn't agree to
1:54 sacrifice himself it would be different
1:56 if he
1:58 consented or when we were talking about
2:01 the cabin boy
2:04 killing and eating The Cabin Boy some
2:06 people said well if they had consented
2:08 to a lottery it would be different then
2:11 it would be all right so consent has
2:15 come up a lot and here in John Lock we
2:19 have one of the great philosophers of
2:22 consent consent is an obvious familiar
2:25 idea in moral and political
2:28 philosophy lock says that legitimate
2:30 government is government founded on
2:32 consent and who nowadays would disagree with
2:34 with
2:36 them sometimes when the ideas of
2:39 political philosophers are as familiar
2:42 as locks ideas about
2:45 consent it's hard to make sense of them
2:47 or at least to find them very
2:49 interesting but there are some puzzles
2:52 some strange
2:55 features of locks account of consent as
2:57 the basis of legitimate
2:59 government and that's what I'd like to
3:04 today one way of
3:06 of
3:08 testing the plausibility of Lock's idea
3:11 of consent and also of probing some of its
3:18 perplexities is to ask just what a
3:21 legitimate government founded on consent
3:25 can do what are its powers according to
3:28 lock well in order to answer that
3:34 question it helps to remember what the
3:37 state of nature is like remember the
3:40 state of nature is the condition that we
3:42 decide to
3:45 leave and that's what gives rise to
3:47 consent why not stay there why bother
3:50 with government at
3:54 all Well w Lo's answer to that question
3:56 he says there are some inconveniences in
3:58 the state of nature but what are those inconveniences
4:00 inconveniences
4:02 the main inconvenience
4:05 is that
4:09 everyone can enforce the law of
4:11 nature everyone is an enforcer or what
4:14 lot calls the
4:17 executor of the state of
4:20 nature and he means executor
4:24 literally if someone violates the law of
4:28 nature he's an
4:30 aggressor he's Beyond
4:37 him and you don't have to be too careful
4:41 or fine about gradations of punishment
4:43 in the state of nature you can kill him
4:45 you can certainly kill someone who comes after
4:47 after
4:51 you tries to murder you that
4:53 self-defense but the enforcement power
4:56 the right to punish everyone can do the
4:57 punishing in the state of
5:00 nature and not only can you punish with
5:02 death people who come after
5:05 you seeking to take your
5:08 life you can also punish a thief who
5:11 tries to steal your goods because that
5:13 also counts as aggression against the
5:15 law of
5:19 nature if someone has stolen from a
5:22 third party you can go after
5:25 him why is this well violations of the
5:28 law of nature are an act of
5:30 aggression there is is no police force
5:32 there are no judges no
5:36 juries so everyone is is the judge in
5:38 his or her own
5:41 case and lock observes that when people
5:43 are the judges of their own cases they
5:50 away and this gives rise to the
5:52 inconvenience in the state of
5:55 nature people overshoot the mark there's
5:58 aggression there's
6:00 punishment and before you know it
6:04 everybody is insecure in the
6:07 enjoyment of his or her unalienable
6:10 rights to life liberty and
6:13 property now he describes in pretty
6:17 harsh and even Grim
6:20 terms what you can do to people who
6:23 violate the law of nature one may
6:26 destroy a man who makes War upon him for
6:29 the same reason that he may kill a wolf or
6:30 or
6:33 lion such men have no other rule but
6:35 that of force and violence listen to
6:39 this and so may be treated as beasts of
6:43 prey those dangerous and noxious
6:46 creatures that will be sure to destroy
6:48 you if you fall into their power so kill them
6:50 them first
6:51 first
6:54 so what starts
6:57 out as a seemingly
6:59 benign state of nature where every one's
7:02 free and yet where there is a law and
7:04 the law respects people's rights and
7:06 those rights are so powerful that
7:09 they're unalienable what starts
7:11 out looking very
7:14 benign once you look
7:17 closer is pretty Fierce and filled with
7:21 violence and that's why people want to
7:24 leave how do they leave well here's
7:29 where consent comes in the only way to
7:33 escape from from the state of nature is to
7:35 to
7:37 undertake an act of
7:42 consent where you agree to give up the enforcement
7:43 enforcement
7:46 power and to create a
7:49 government or a
7:52 community where there will be a
7:54 legislature to make
7:59 law and where everyone agrees in advance
8:03 everyone who enters agrees in advance to
8:06 abide by whatever the majority decides
8:08 but then the question and this is our
8:09 question and here's where I want to get
8:13 your views then the question is what
8:16 powers what can the majority
8:21 decide now here it gets tricky for lock
8:23 because you remember alongside the whole
8:27 story about consent and majority rule
8:29 there are these natural natural rights
8:31 the law of nature these unalienable
8:34 rights and you remember they don't
8:38 disappear when people join together to
8:40 create a civil
8:44 society so even once the majority is in
8:49 charge the majority can't violate
8:52 your inalienable rights can't violate
8:54 your fundamental right to life liberty and
8:55 and
8:58 property so here's the puzzle
9:00 puzzle
9:03 how much power does the majority have
9:14 consent it's limited by the
9:17 obligation on the part of the majority
9:20 to respect and to
9:23 enforce the fundamental natural rights
9:25 of the citizens they don't give those up
9:27 we don't give those up when we enter
9:29 government that's this powerful idea
9:40 Declaration unalienable rights so let's
9:43 go to our two cases remember Michael
9:45 Jordan Bill Gates the libertarian
9:48 objection to taxation for redistribution
9:50 well what about Lock's limited
9:52 government is there anyone who thinks that
9:54 that
9:57 lock does give
10:08 redistribution anybody go
10:11 ahead if you if if the majority rules
10:13 that there should be
10:16 taxation uh even if the minority should
10:18 still not have to be taxed because
10:21 that's taking away property which is one
10:23 of the rights of
10:27 nature all right so and what's your name
10:30 Ben Ben
10:39 minority without the consent of the
10:42 minority to that particular tax
10:45 law it does amount to a taking of their
10:47 property without their
10:50 consent and it would seem that lock
10:54 should object to
10:57 that do you want some textual support
10:59 for your view for your reading of block
11:02 Ben sure all
11:04 right I brought some along just in case
11:07 you raised
11:09 it if you've got if you have your texts
11:12 look at 138 passage
11:16 138 the supreme power by which lock
11:17 means the legislature cannot take from
11:20 any man any part of his property without
11:21 his own
11:24 consent for the preservation of property
11:26 being the end of government and that for
11:28 which men enter into society and
11:31 necessarily supposes and requires that
11:33 people should have property that was the
11:34 whole reason for entering Society in the
11:36 first place to protect the right to
11:39 property and when Lo speaks about the
11:41 right to property he often uses that as
11:44 a kind of global term for the whole
11:52 property so that part of
11:55 lock at beginning of 138 seems to
11:59 support Ben's reading but what about the
12:01 part of
12:05 138 if you keep reading men therefore in
12:06 society having
12:09 property they have such a right to the
12:13 goods which by the law of the community
12:16 are theirs look at
12:19 this and that no one can take from them
12:20 without their
12:23 consent and then at the
12:25 end of this passage he says so it's a
12:27 mistake to think that the legislative
12:30 power can do what it will and dispose of
12:32 the Estates of the subject arbitrarily
12:35 or take any part of them at
12:42 elusive on the one hand he says the
12:43 government can't take your property
12:46 without your consent he's clear about
12:49 that but then he goes on to say I mean
12:51 that's the natural right to property but
12:53 then it seems that property what counts
12:55 as property is not natural but
12:58 conventional defined by the government
13:01 government
13:03 the goods which by the law of the
13:06 community are
13:09 theirs and the plot thickens if you look
13:12 ahead to section
13:15 140 in 140 he says governments can't be
13:16 supported without great charge
13:19 government is expensive and it's fit
13:21 that everyone who enjoys his share of
13:25 the protection should pay out of his
13:28 estate and then here's the crucial line
13:31 but still it must be with his own
13:34 consent I.E the consent of the
13:36 majority giving it either by themselves
13:37 or through their
13:45 saying property is natural in one sense
13:49 but conventional in another it's natural
13:51 in the sense that we have a fundamental
13:55 unalienable right that there be property
13:57 that the institution of property exist
14:00 and be respected by the
14:03 government so an arbitrary taking of
14:05 property would be a violation of the law of
14:06 of
14:09 Nature and would be
14:12 illegitimate but it's a further question
14:14 here's the conventional aspect of
14:17 property it's a further question what
14:21 counts as property how it's defined and what
14:22 what
14:25 counts that's taking property and that's
14:27 up to the
14:30 government so the consent
14:31 here here
14:34 we're coming back to our question what
14:36 is the work of
14:39 consent what it takes for taxation to be
14:43 legitimate is that it be by consent not
14:45 the consent of Bill Gates himself if
14:48 he's the one who has to pay the
14:51 tax but by the consent that he and we
14:54 all of us within the society gave when
14:55 we emerged from the state of nature and
14:57 created the
15:00 government in the the first place it's
15:11 reading it looks like consent is doing a whole
15:13 whole
15:16 lot and the limited government consent
15:23 limited does anyone want to respond to
15:25 that or have a question
15:30 about that go ahead stand up
15:33 well I'm just wondering what Lock's view
15:36 is on once you have a government that's
15:40 already in place whether it is possible
15:42 for people who are born into that
15:44 government to then leave and return to
15:46 the state of nature I mean I don't think
15:50 that lock mentioned that at all in the
15:51 what do you
15:53 think well I
15:56 think as the convention it would be very
16:01 difficult to leave the government
16:04 because you are no
16:06 longer there's because nobody else is
16:08 just living in the state of nature
16:12 everybody else is now governed by this
16:14 legislature what would it mean today
16:16 you're asking and what's your name
16:19 Nicola Nicola to leave the state suppose
16:22 you wanted to leave civil society today
16:25 you want to withdraw your consent and
16:26 return to the state of nature well
16:28 because you didn't actually consent to
16:30 it you were just born in into it it was
16:36 your ancestors who joined right so you
16:39 didn't sign the social contract I didn't
16:41 sign it exactly all right so what does
16:43 lock say there
16:45 there
16:47 yeah I don't think lock says that you
16:48 have to sign anything I think that he
16:51 says that it's kind of implied consent
16:52 by living and taking government services
16:54 you are implying that you're consenting
16:57 to the government taking things from you
16:59 all right so implied consent that's a
17:01 partial answer to this challenge now you
17:03 may not think that implied consent is as
17:05 good as the real thing is that what
17:07 you're shaking your head about Nikolai
17:10 speak up stand up and speak up I don't
17:13 think that necessarily just by utilizing
17:16 the government s um you know various
17:20 resources that we are necessarily
17:23 implying that we agree with the way that
17:25 this government was
17:28 formed or that we have consented to
17:30 actually join into the social
17:32 contract so you you don't think the idea
17:35 of implied consent is strong enough to
17:37 generate any obligation at all to obey the
17:37 the
17:41 government not necessarily no Nikolai if
17:43 you didn't think you'd get
17:47 caught would you pay your
17:50 taxes um I don't think
17:54 so I would I would rather have a system
17:57 personally that I would that I could
18:00 give money to exactly those those
18:01 sections of the government that I
18:04 support and not just blanket support
18:05 everything you'd rather be in the state
18:14 15th but what I'm trying to get at is do
18:16 you consider that you're under no
18:18 obligation since you haven't actually
18:21 entered into any Act of consent but for
18:23 Prudential reasons you do what you're
18:25 supposed to do according to the law
18:28 exactly if you look at it that way then
18:30 you're ating another one of lock
18:32 treatises which is that you can't take
18:34 anything from anyone else um like you
18:36 can't you can't take the government's
18:38 services and then not give them anything
18:42 in return if you if you want to go live
18:44 in the state of nature that's fine but
18:45 you can't take anything for the
18:46 government Because by the government's
18:47 terms which are the only terms under
18:50 which you can enter the agreement say
18:51 that you have to pay taxes to take those
18:53 things so you're saying that that Nicola
18:55 can go back into the state of nature if
18:57 she wants to but she can't drive on mass
18:59 app exactly
19:00 I want to I want to raise the stakes
19:03 Beyond using the M Beyond using massav
19:07 yes and even Beyond taxation what about
19:10 life what about military
19:12 conscription yes what do you say stand
19:15 up um first of all we have to remember
19:18 that sending people to war is not
19:20 necessarily implying that they'll die I
19:22 mean obviously you're not raising their
19:24 chances here
19:27 but it's not a death penalty so if
19:29 you're going to discuss whether or not
19:32 military conscriptions is equivalent to
19:34 you know suppressing people right to
19:36 life you shouldn't approach it that
19:39 way um secondly the real problem here is
19:42 lo has this view about consent and natural
19:44 natural
19:46 rights but you're not allowed to give up
19:48 your natural rights either so the real
19:51 question is you know how does he himself
19:56 figure it out between I agree to give up
19:58 my life give up my property when he talk
20:01 about taxes or military conscription for
20:03 the fact but I guess lock would be
20:05 against suicide and that's still you
20:08 know my own consent I agree good all
20:10 right what's your name Eric so Eric
20:12 brings us back to the puzzle we've been
20:14 wrestling with since we started reading
20:18 lock on the one hand we have these
20:20 unalienable rights to life liberty and
20:23 property which means that even we don't
20:24 have the power to give them
20:28 up and that's what creates the limits on
20:30 leg legitimate government it's not what
20:32 we consent to that limits
20:36 government it's what we lack the power
20:37 to give
20:41 away when we consent that limits
20:44 government that's the that's the point
20:47 at the heart of locks hole account of legitimate
20:49 legitimate
20:52 government but now you say well if we
20:54 can't give up our own life if we can't commit
20:56 commit
20:58 suicide if we can't give up our right to
21:00 proper property how can we then agree to
21:03 be bound by majority that will force us
21:10 property does lo have a way out of this
21:13 or is is he basically
21:16 basically
21:19 sanctioning an all powerful government
21:21 despite everything he
21:24 says about unable rights does he have a
21:26 way out of who would speak here in
21:29 defense of lock or make sense find a way
21:31 out of this predicament all right go
21:33 ahead I feel like there's a general
21:35 distinction to be made between the the
21:37 right to life that individuals possess
21:39 and the and the fact that a government
21:40 cannot take away uh a single
21:44 individual's right to life uh I think if
21:46 you look at conscription as the
21:47 government picking out certain
21:49 individuals to go fight in war then that
21:51 would be a violation of their rights
21:53 their natural right to life on the other
21:56 hand if you have conscription or uh
21:59 let's say a lottery for example then in
22:02 that case uh I would view that as the
22:03 the population picking their
22:05 representatives to defend them in in the
22:07 case of war the idea being that since
22:09 the whole population cannot go out there
22:11 to defend its own right to property it
22:13 picks its own Representatives through a
22:15 process uh that's essentially random and
22:17 then these these sort of elected
22:20 representatives go out and fight for uh
22:22 the rights of the people it works very
22:25 similar uh it works just like an elected
22:27 government in my opinion all right so an
22:29 elected government can conscript
22:32 citizens to go out and defend the way of
22:34 life the
22:36 community that makes the enjoyment of
22:40 Rights possible I think I think it can
22:42 because uh to me it seems that it's very
22:45 similar to the process of electing uh
22:49 representatives to legislature although
22:53 here it's as if the government is
22:55 electing by
22:59 conscription certain citizens to go die
23:02 for the sake of of the whole is that
23:05 consistent with respect for a natural
23:07 right to Liberty well what I would say
23:09 there is there's a distinction between
23:13 picking out individuals uh and having uh
23:15 uh a random choice of individuals like
23:17 between picking out let me make sure
23:19 between picking out
23:23 individuals let me what's your name gok
23:25 gopel says there's a difference between
23:27 picking out individuals to lay down
23:29 their lives
23:30 and having a general
23:34 law I think this is on I think this is
23:37 the answer Lo would give actually
23:40 go lock is against arbitrary government
23:43 he's against the arbitrary taking the
23:46 singling out of Bill Gates to finance
23:48 the war in Iraq he's against singling
23:51 out a particular citizen or group of
23:55 people to go off and fight but if
23:59 there's a general law such that the the
24:01 government's Choice the majority's
24:04 action is nonarbitrary
24:09 it doesn't really amount to a violation
24:10 violation
24:14 of people's basic rights what does count
24:17 as a violation is an arbitrary taking
24:19 because that would essentially say not
24:22 only to Bill Gates but to everyone there
24:24 is no rule of law there is no
24:27 institution of property because at the
24:30 whim of the king or for that matter of
24:36 the parliament we can name you or you to
24:39 give up your property or to give up your
24:41 life but so long as there is a
24:44 nonarbitrary rule of law
24:50 then it's permissible now you may say
24:54 this doesn't amount to a very limited
24:56 government and the libertarian May
24:59 complain that L is not such a terrific
25:02 Ally after all the libertarian has two
25:07 grounds for disappointment in lock
25:10 first that the rights are unalienable
25:13 and therefore I don't really own myself
25:16 after all I can't dispose of my life or
25:18 my Liberty or my property in a way that
25:21 violates my rights that's disappointment
25:25 number one disappointment number two
25:26 once there's a legitimate government
25:29 based on consent
25:31 the only limits for
25:36 lock are limits on arbitrary takings of
25:39 life or of Liberty or of property but if
25:41 the majority decides if the majority
25:45 promulgates a generally applicable
25:48 law and if it
25:52 votes duly according to Fair procedures
25:55 then there is no violation whether it's
25:59 a system of Taxation or a system of
26:02 conscription so it's clear that Lo is
26:05 worried about the absolute arbitrary
26:08 power of
26:11 Kings but it's also true and here's the
26:14 darker side of lock that this great
26:16 theorist of consent came up with a
26:18 theory of private property that didn't require
26:24 consent that may and this goes back to
26:27 the point relle made last time may have
26:31 had something do with Lock's second
26:34 concern which was America you remember
26:35 when he talks about the state of nature
26:39 he's not talking about an imaginary
26:42 place in the beginning he says all the
26:44 world was America and what was going on in
26:45 in
26:47 America the
26:50 settlers were enclosing
26:55 land and engaged in wars with the Native
26:59 Americans lock who is an administrator
27:03 of one of the colonies may have been as
27:06 interested in providing a justification
27:08 for private property through enclosure without
27:09 without
27:12 consent through enclosure and
27:15 cultivation as he was with developing a
27:19 theory of government based on consent
27:23 that would reign in Kings and arbitrary
27:27 rulers the question we're left with the
27:28 fundamental question we still haven't
27:32 answered is what then Becomes of consent
27:34 what work can it do what is its moral
27:37 Force what are the limits of
27:40 consent consent matters not only for
27:42 governments but also for
27:45 markets and beginning next time we're
27:48 going to take up questions of the limits of
27:48 of
