Locke and Machiavelli: Two Polar Opposites of Government

Throughout the years, there have been many forms over government or political ideals that have helped shape nations. While some have failed and fallen, others have prevailed and are still used and sought after to this day. Over the course of history, many political advocates have come forward and written about what they believe to be the perfect ideals to weave into a government or political system. Among these advocates are John Locke, author of Second Treatise of Civil Government, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince.

Both men had very drastic ideas for what ideals a society and government should contain.

Machiavelli believed a ruler should be able to appear strong, should be able to manipulate, and should rule more in his own interest to keep power. Locke, on the other hand, was the basis for the United States constitution. He believed people were born with certain rights that could not be infringed upon by government. While the two men may have had very different outtakes on how a country should be ruled and what political system should be put in place, both bring certain important aspects to the forefront that must be analyzed to better understand politics and history as a whole.

Two concepts within John Locke’s book were the social contract theory and natural law. When Locke discusses a natural law, he is referring to the point that he believes no one person should have the right to decide what is just or unjust in a society.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified

Proficient in: John Locke

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

He believes a state of nature has two parts: one being freedom and the other being equality. “…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature…. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another….” (Locke 4).

He believes natural law lays the foundation of no one person is allowed to punish another. If one person has the right to enact a fit punishment for the crime against the society, then all people have the right to enact a fit punishment. “And in this case, and upon this ground, every man has a right to punish the offender and be executioner of the law of nature” (Locke 7). Locke strongly advocated for everyone having an equal standing in society, and he reiterated the fact that no one person should have extreme power over another person or group of people (this is evident in the monarch he came from verses the democracy he inspired).

The other concept Locke likes to discuss is the Social Contract. As Peardon, in his introduction, points out, “In Locke’s use of the social contract there are at least four conspicuous features… to preserve natural freedom…to exclude rulers from the contract…relied most on “tacit consent”…majority rule” (XV-XVI). While these may be the main points of the social contract that Locke came up with, to simplify, he believed in men loaning some of their rights to the government in order to form a more perfect society. This is unlike Hobbes, who believed that men should give up their rights to the government for the benefit of society. His first point with the social contract was that “…men, by nature, are free…those who wish to remain in a state of nature are permitted to do so” (Peardon XV). Locke didn’t want anyone to feel as though their rights had to be surrendered to the government.

He wanted it, as Peardon states, to be accepted on both sides. His second point tied into his first as Locke didn’t want a contract between classes of power. “The agreement is between free individuals, not between rulers and ruled” (Peardon XV). He wanted the people to have the right to say no of their own free will to the social contract.The tacit consent comes into the play due to the fact that the contract can only be made one time for one generation. By using tacit consent, it is implied that future generations will consent to the deal made by previous ones, however, members of those generations are welcome to back out at any time due to the fact that they are free individuals (Peardon XVI). Finally, Locke believed that it should be the majority that had the power of decision. As Peardon once again mentions, Locke didn’t have a solution to keep the power of the majority in check for the minorities, however, it seems that Locke believed the majority would have the values and morals to keep the interest of all men in their hearts rather than just the interest of themselves (Peardon XVI).

To continue off of the above points, John Locke’s ideas were a large influence when it came to the American Revolution. Not only is our country founded on his principals believing every man had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also his idea of every man having the right to decide for himself was a large reason for the United States’ revolt. Our forefathers were done with the monarchy. They shared in Locke’s idea that the social contract should be an transfer of some rights for the good of the community rather than completely giving up rights (for example, having to house British soldiers) for the sake of the person in power. They wanted a smaller government where the people had more of a chance to choose just like Locke discussed both publically during his time and in his book.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, has views that are very polar opposite from John Locke. Based on my previous exposure and experience with Niccolo Machiavelli, I am aware that he was very much of the opinion to do what you can to stay in power. I had a hard time drawing a deep connection between Machiavelli’s view on ethics as they interact with politics, so I turned my attention to a source outside of The Prince.

G.H.R Parkinson wrote a section on Machiavelli’s view on ethics and politics in The Philosophical Quarterly where even he discusses the troubles some scholars have had trying to decide what Machiavelli’s views on the two intertwining subjects were. Essentially in his section on Machiavelli, Parkinson interprets it as Machiavelli’s morals change depending on what is going to be best for the state and for power (Parkinson 36-39). If you need to be stern to keep your country in line, or if you need to be morally unethical at times, as long as it is for the good of the country and the power of the prince, it is completely acceptable to do so. However, as Parkinson discusses, this isn’t to say that Machiavelli believed the ruler of a country should always be cruel (37-39). Essentially, if it is within his or her power to have ethics and morals, that’s the preferred route, however, if a country’s people need the control of a harsh ruler, morality and ethics come second to holding power.

Going off of the concepts of doing all a prince can to keep power, Machiavelli even wrote a chapter in The Prince dealing with the positives and negatives of being fears versus being loved as a ruler. While Machiavelli values both, he ultimately believes in holding the position of power over the people. “…one would want to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to put them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack one of the two (Machiavelli 66). In the above quote, it is clear he holds both at a high standard, but to be feared to to play the game safely when it comes to power. If a prince is too soft, he will be overthrown, but if he is feared his people will not have the confidence to riot against him, which means he keeps the power.

Machiavelli summarizes this perfectly with “And men have less hesitation to offend one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared….” (66). Yet he also points out later on in the chapter that if a prince does need to rule with fear he should do his best to not be hated by his people (Machiavelli 67). It is very evident what Machiavelli’s views throughout this chapter are: both statues are good, but fear is what will ultimately keep someone in power. Therefore, fear should be the trait among the two.

Ultimately, it is hard to do a side by side comparison of the two ideas only because they are so opposite of each other. Locke believes in equality of man where Machiavelli believes that one should stay in a position of power. With this being said, I can still see how the ideas in both systems could come together to create their ideal government. There are regimes in the world where fear has worked best to control the minds of the people, whereas there are also other countries where the basis of equality has tried to shine as the main principle when it comes to leadership. It is hard to deny these men were incredible assets to today’s governing styles, and many of their core values are very evident in the governments and leaders of today.