John Locke: Freedom, Property and the Colonial Project.
How can we identify advantages and weaknesses of any theory’s? Of course, we should try to look how different parts of these theories are using in real life.Everybody knows philosopher is writing about the pattern, he is talking about how the state should be arranged, he expresses his political and moral views, he represents the time and the country where he lives.
I think, in John’s Locke theory is a great theory. The social contract conception of John Locke was a real breakthrough in theories of state, though it contains enough idealistic preconditions – good nature of man. But this does not influence the whole theory at all – the main idea for me is concentrated on people desire to transform the “state of nature” to the social government because of its higher effectiveness for people. Locke's ethical theory according to which when conducted rationally, leads to cooperation, sends us to civil society concept. Cooperation based on mutual trust (on social capital) is pure and simple civil society. Thus its presence according to Locke is connected directly with «wise conduct». In my opinion, this connection is not obvious. As Locke thought “if conduct wisely – you will get cooperation”. But also revolutions (that is situations after conduct “not wisely”) are possible only at high level of trust between people – when people are ready to go out, to leave homes to protect the rights together. It turns out that there is still something that makes people trust each other, and this question I leave opened. Trust to institutions (as power, court and so on) depends on its activities and results people can observe, but trust to each other (which, for example, in Russia has fallen considerably - 84 % of Russians don't trust each other) is worked out other ways and in other “mines”. But the destruction of trust, in my opinion, is really connected with interstate processes: people lose the social capital during hard changes, reforms and so forth.
For understanding the genesis of civil society, I suppose private property concept to be very important. And here again everything is simple: firstly a person independent financially can dispose the time (activity), secondly, he has his own interest which he is ready to defend. The property is really that people ready to struggle for, including public one – woods, parks, and in general – space: people defend even the right «for the sky» - in case of infill construction, for example.
But not only the private property, free time and presence of the interest transfer a person to “citizen level”. Members of a civil society are «professional citizens» who not simply have the interest and are ready to defend it (at level «yes, I am certainly ready» - without any further actions), but also defend it, express it in public space, learn to do it in cooperation with other people. To supervise those who are in power for not allow them to overstep the limits established in the social contract people should be able to speak with them in the same language, and it demands some efforts. The bigger efforts than a violent speech on “burning” topic in a neighbor’s kitchen requires.
Thinking over colonial system and its justification, I can not find any “moral” reason for it, except for the unavoidable wish of strong states to extend theirs territories and potential they own to do it. Human rights based on the rights for property were the core point for John Locke, but in my opinion he separated those who were worth being “masters” and who – not. Yes, all the people, according to Locke, are free naturally and they have the right for possessions and the right to choose what they can do with the fruits of theirs labour (because they are the owners), but…what happened with this Locke’s proposition when he started to work with Secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantations, which formulated colonial policy?
You can ask: how can it be real? Because Locke is a protector of the human rights but colonialism is a violating of human rights.
However, one should understand that when Lock was talking about the protection of the right for property, for life and for freedom he meant only those states, which "signed" the social contract. This is the main contradiction in his theory.
If we talk about the human rights we should understand that "the human rights" are the rights of everyone and it's impossible to have them for one group of people and not to have them for the other.