John Locke's social contract theory appears, at first glance, to envision the growth of liberty and the concomitant recession of authority. Viewed in this light, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government presents a clear contrast, manifesting individual liberty as the dominant political value to which authority submits. A closer look, however, reveals a much more complicated theory. Locke's system of governance struggles to demonstrate how the prerogative of executive power can respect the values ​​of justice and equality supposedly mandated by the law of nature and the social contract. In Locke's tripartite government, where power is shared between the legislative, executive, and federal branches, there will inevitably be "such cases, which, depending on unforeseen and uncertain events, certain unalterable laws could not regulate." , the executive, or "the prince", has the prerogative to act in the name of the State, as long as his actions aim at the common good of the people. Locke erects his system of liberal governance based on an understanding of human goodness inherent in the state of nature and, in doing so, necessarily grants excessive prerogative to the prince. While Locke takes care to control significant violations of the prerogatives of power, he leaves his society unprotected against infrequent or minor transgressions of liberty based on a belief in the unscrupulousness and absurdity of the majority of the Commonwealth. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay Entering society, Locke posits that man has the right “not to be subject to the fickle, uncertain will , unknown and arbitrary to another”. man” (IV.22), but rather to the civil laws which are supreme in society. In limited cases "where a strict and rigid observance of the laws may injure" (XIV. 159), the prince has the power to exercise his prerogative, so long as it is towards the end of the preservation of the republic. However, Locke expects that the citizens of society do not sufficiently monitor the actions of the executive to prevent its arbitrary and harmful exercise of its prerogatives. In fact, the prerogative of the executive “is an incontestable prerogative and is never questioned: for the people are very rarely scrupulous” (XIV. 161). Note that Locke means by “scrupulous” the sense of carelessness, rather than lack of moral principles. The inattention with which Locke describes the citizens of society seemingly creates an opportunity for massive exploitation of the prerogative power of the executive. Furthermore, Locke argues that even when people apprehend a violation of the power entrusted to the executive, they are unlikely to "alter the recognized principles." defects in the framework to which they are accustomed” (XIX.223). Thus, Locke paints a picture of the masses of society as both inattentive and obtuse. Even when injustices are perceived, individual cases of mistreatment remain largely ignored. In reference to the majority, Locke writes that “instances of particular injustice or oppression of here and unhappy men move them not” (XIX.230). According to the law of nature, the majority is primarily interested in self-preservation. Locke expects that the law of nature and the inherent tendencies of the masses will prevent them from perceiving executive wrongdoing, seeing specific injustices against individuals, and demanding change from their government . Given that Locke's government derives its legitimacy from the consensual path by which it is conceived, it seems quiteplausible fact that the executive can exercise legitimate – albeit arbitrary and unfair – prerogative power due to the myopic and obstinate nature of its citizens. argues that the unjust exercise of executive prerogative cannot continue indefinitely: while the people may be inattentive to slight and infrequent injustices committed by the executive in areas not resolved by law, they will take note and demand change in the executive "if a long series of [executive] actions shows that the councils tend in that direction" (XIX.210), meaning if a long series of harmful actions related to executive prerogatives highlights wickedness of the prince. When obtuse citizens finally apprehend the wrongful actions of the executive, the people will consider "the tendency of the exercise of such prerogative to the good or evil of the people" (XIV.161) in determining whether action should be taken against the prince. . Since the people will view the long chain of unjust actions as evidence of the prince's tendency toward iniquity, the majority will demand usurpation of the prince or punitive action through established political channels. Accordingly, Locke believes that it is impossible for the executive to significantly abuse its prerogative power in a way that does not respect the liberties of its people. In fact, despite his belief in the unscrupulousness of the people, Locke argues that the unjust prerogative actions of the prince need not go too far because the executive will restrain his own wretched prerogative actions. Locke argues that “this [unjust prerogative action] only works when the inconvenience is so great that the majority feel it, grow weary of it, and find it necessary to modify it.” But this is what the executive power or wise princes must never run into danger of: and it is the thing, of all others, that they most need to avoid, as of all others the most perilous” (XIV. 168). Although it is not immediately clear whether Locke is holding that the arbitrary exercise of prerogative is perilous to the executive or to the Commonwealth, it is reasonable to assume that both are true. Concerning the first, Locke postulates that all men are subject to the laws of nature and necessarily ensure above all their self-preservation. By abusing his prerogatives, the prince would indirectly expose himself to the potential danger of loss of power and bodily harm (if his actions threatened the physical safety of the majority) if the people revolted in any way. On the other hand, Locke could argue that the prince is inherently good and would avoid actions that would endanger his citizens. This view is more consistent with Locke's theory of human nature. Therefore, even though Locke admits that the prince could, in theory, abuse his prerogative in areas not covered by the law and encroach on the liberty of the citizens of the Commonwealth, it is in the best interest of the prince to exercise his prerogative solely for the preservation of the state. freedom of citizens. Although it is reasonable to expect that the executive branch is aware of the personal dangers associated with impeding the individual liberties of its citizens, there are still many opportunities for the prince to encroach on the freedom of his citizens on its own behalf. prosperity. Certainly, the "wise ruler..." (XIV.164) will also be aware of his citizens' inattention, their apathy toward individual cases of mistreatment, and their tendency not to demand change from the government with which they are familiar . A Machiavellian executive could deliberately infringe in minor ways on the rights of its citizens, in its own interest, without any..158