How should government behave towards the governed? by Neil Lock

Recently, I addressed the question: what functions should government perform? Based on the ideas of John Locke, I came up with a fairly conventional list. A legislative, with highly circumscribed powers. A police force or equivalent. A defensive and retaliatory military. Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, with the associated support services. A quality control function. And a fair and just system of financing its functions.

Today, I’ll look at a question at right angles to that one. Namely, how should government behave towards those whose lives, rights and liberties it is tasked with defending?

Locke’s answers

Locke himself gave some answers to this question.

First, every law a government makes must be for the good of the governed. And it must never go against, or push beyond the bounds of, the standard of behaviour natural to human beings: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Moreover, any law must be for the good of every individual among the governed, who behaves up to the standard of human nature. And every law must be made known to all, and the case for it explained. So, anyone affected by it can understand it, and why and how it benefits them.

Second, criminal penalties may only be imposed on those that attack the lives, persons, liberties or possessions of others. And civil penalties are only justified as reparations for quantifiable damage caused. Outside these situations, government must never damage the life, person, liberties or possessions of any individual among the governed.

Third, all judges’ decisions must be impartial and unbiased.

Fourth, payment for government must be as far as possible in proportion to the benefits each individual receives from the protections it delivers. In practice, that means in proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Government should never take anything more than this.

Fifth, government must never go beyond its remit of securing the lives, persons, liberties and possessions of the governed. Nor may it ever attack anyone who behaves up to human standards.

Sixth, government must recognize that all its power ultimately derives from the people it governs, and must never seek to transfer any of that power to any other parties.

Enlightenment values

I have written much about the Enlightenment, and the values it has brought to us since John Locke initially sparked it. Back in 2021, I went so far as to make a list of these values. Here it is: “The use and celebration of human reason. Rational inquiry, and the pursuit of science. Greater tolerance in religion. Individual liberty and independence; freedom of thought and action. The pursuit of happiness. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed. The rule of law; that is, those with government power, such as lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as everyone else. An ideal of justice which, per Kant, allows that ‘the freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone in accordance with a universal law.’ A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.”

It’s interesting to see how these values might be incorporated into the practices of an enlightened government today.

Reason

Reason is, simply put, thinking, understanding and forming judgements in a logical way. And “reasonable” means fair, sensible and showing sound judgement. A reasonable government, then, would be one that makes its decisions rationally and objectively, as well as impartially.

Rational inquiry and science

Rational inquiry takes reason forwards, in order to reach conclusions that match reality. Science is a particular kind of rational inquiry; when done properly, it is a method for finding out truths about our surroundings. A government that values rational inquiry and science would ensure that all its decisions are based on evidence, reason and, where appropriate, honest science.

Religious tolerance

A government that values religious tolerance would not use its powers to impose on anyone any particular religion or philosophy. Such as Christianity, Islam, atheism, socialism, fascism or environmentalism. Nor would it tolerate those that seek to impose on others any such religion or philosophy. Nor would it prohibit the practices of any religion or philosophy, unless they violate the standard of behaviour natural to human beings.

Liberty and independence

Individual liberty and individual independence are Enlightenment values. Those who want them (which is most of us), and who earn them by behaving up to human standards, deserve to enjoy them. Government should never discriminate against those who seek these things.

Closely related is the idea that any society, most of all a Lockean political society that seeks to justify the formation of a government, must act for the benefit of its members. All its members. If such a society fails to do so, and government treats any of the governed as if their good is subordinate to that of the government, or of some collective “society,” or of a political agenda, that government is failing to meet the purposes for which it was formed.

Natural rights

The natural rights, which form the flip side of Locke’s summary of the natural law of humanity, are: Life (in the sense of not being murdered). Security of person (not being attacked). Liberty, or having all your fundamental rights and freedoms recognized. And not to have your property violated or taken away.

To these the US Declaration of Independence adds the right to pursue happiness. And the first few amendments to the US constitution add more yet.

First amendment: Freedom of religious belief and practice. Freedom of speech, freedom to write and disseminate ideas and opinions. Right to peaceful assembly. Right to protest grievances, and to demand their rectification.

Second amendment: Right to self-defence, both individually and in association with others. Right to means of self-defence sufficient to implement that right.

Third amendment: Right to exclude unwanted individuals from your property.

Fourth amendment: Right not to have yourself, your property whether fixed or movable, or your records searched or seized, without all of: Reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. Pre-specification of where is to be searched, and what for. And due process of law.

Fifth amendment: No criminal punishment without a conviction under due process of law. No second jeopardy for the same accusation. No compulsion to self-incrimination. No deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. No taking of property without just compensation.

Sixth amendment: Right to speedy and public trial of all criminal accusations. Right to determination by impartial tribunal. Right to be informed of the specifics of, and reasons for, the accusations. Right to cross-examine, directly or through an agent, the witnesses against you. Right to all the guarantees necessary for your defence.

Eighth amendment: No excessive bail demands. No excessive fines. No cruel or unusual punishments.

Ninth and tenth amendments: Any list of rights is not necessarily exhaustive. And any powers not explicitly delegated to government remain with the people.

Thirteenth amendment: No slavery or involuntary servitude.

Natural equality of human beings, and the rule of law

Equality among human beings was considered natural in the Enlightenment. In Locke’s words: “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” So, there can be no “divine right of kings” (or anyone else) to rule over others, or to use political power for their own purposes.

Moreover, the Enlightenment idea of the rule of law implies that everyone must obey the same rules. In my terms, this is equivalent to the ethical equality of all human beings. What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

Human dignity

The idea of human dignity implies that every human being deserves to be treated as a human being. Not as a mere animal, or as a resource to be taxed or otherwise exploited, or as merely a member of some “society,” or as no more than a number or a pattern of bits in a database.

If you are a human being – that is, if you behave as a human being – then you must be treated as an individual, with the full measure of dignity and respect which are due to a human being.

Government – constitutional, for the benefit of and with the consent of the governed

For government to be constitutional, its powers must be clearly defined and delineated. They must be known to all the governed. And they may never be exceeded.

That government must be for the benefit of the governed means not only that everything it seeks to do must be a benefit to the governed – to every human being among the governed. But also, that the costs the governed are expected to pay for government, either in aggregate or as individuals, must never exceed the value of the benefits government provides to them, either in aggregate or as individuals. Government has no right “to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish” the governed, or anyone among them. Nor may it unjustly take wealth away, or re-distribute wealth to itself or its favourites. Nor may it “harass or subdue” the governed “to the arbitrary and irregular commands” of those in power.

That government must have the consent of the governed means that its power has been delegated by the people, and continues only with their consent. Thus, where a government fails to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the governed have the right to take back their consent. As Locke put it: “All power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it.”

Justice

In my earlier essay, I gave you Richard Hooker’s 16^th-century conception of justice, which Locke adopted, and which is not far from my “condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.” This view of justice, I assert, does satisfy Kant’s condition as quoted above.

Desire for human progress

As I outlined in an earlier essay about our history, the Enlightenment was a hugely progressive phase of our development as a species. It’s not surprising, then, that a desire for human progress was an Enlightenment value. So, no government founded on Enlightenment principles would ever put an obstacle in the way of human progress towards a better world.

Rational optimism

Rational optimism, say psychologists, is a “belief that things can and will improve, grounded in realistic expectations and practical action.”

Governments today usually seek not to improve our lives, but to drain us and to violate our rights and freedoms. And their goals are often nonsensical, unrealistic or both. This makes many people pessimistic about at least the short-term future. A government founded on Enlightenment principles, on the other hand, would always aim to improve the lives of the people, would be realistic in its goals and expectations, and would be careful to restrict its plans to things which are both feasible and cost-effective.

Human rights

“Human rights” can be a source of major disputes. Many proposed rights – life, liberty, security of person, and prohibition of torture, for example – are accepted as real rights by almost everyone. In contrast, there are extreme collectivists and moral relativists, that reject any idea of individual human rights. And there are those that would arbitrarily add “rights,” that have no more rationale than their own political agendas.

I myself strongly value the idea of human rights. And I regard each individual as having earned his or her human rights, by respecting the equal rights of others. But I do not accept all proposed “rights” as being real rights. I see a “right” as invalid, if to satisfy it requires violating the rights of others. Social security is an example of such a “right.” I also reject any proposed “right” without a moral standard which, if measured up to by everyone, would deliver it. Such cases include a “right” not to be offended, and “rights” to “clean air” and a “stable climate.”

Types of rights

As I explained in an earlier essay on ethics, rights and obligations, I see three main types of valid human rights:

• Fundamental rights, resulting from obligations to refrain from doing something bad.
• Rights of non-impedance, resulting from obligations not to put any obstacle in the way of others’ freedom to do something they want to.
• Procedural rights. These guide the procedures used in confrontational situations, including between government and the people it is supposed to serve.

In addition, I see a fourth type, the somewhat weaker “expectations.” These result from obligations, that positively require behaving in a convivial and civilized way.

The UN Declaration

The United Nations is today an enemy of humanity, and of our freedoms and prosperity. Given that, it pains me to have to use the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights as the best available specification of modern human rights. But it’s the least bad I have.

I shall list a selection of rights from the UN Declaration below. Where the declaration uses the word “arbitrary,” I will replace it by “without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing.”

Examples of fundamental rights

Dignity, which means being treated as a human being. Life, in the sense of not being murdered. Security of person. No enslavement. No torture. No cruel, unusual or inhuman treatment or punishment. No arrest, detention or exile without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No interference (including surveillance) with privacy, family, home or correspondence, without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No attacks on honour and reputation without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No coercion into marriage. Right to own property alone or with others. No deprivation of property without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No compulsion to belong to any society. No destruction of rights or freedoms.

Examples of rights of non-impedance

Liberty of action and choice. Freedom of movement and residence inside a state. Freedom to exit a state. Right to seek asylum. Freedom to return. Right to marry. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom of opinion, expression and communication. Right to peaceful assembly and association. Right to take part in government, directly or indirectly. Free choice of employment. Right to choose education for your children.

Examples of procedural rights

(These rights are to be respected in confrontational situations, including those involving government).

Recognition as a person before the law. Equality before the law. Remedy for violations of your rights. Fair, public hearing by an independent, impartial tribunal. Presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Public trial. All guarantees necessary for your defence. No retrospective penalties. “Will of the people,” and their consent, as the basis of all authority.

Aspirations

The Declaration also includes a wish-list of what I call “aspirations.” Among these are: Right to work. Social security. Protection against unemployment. Equal pay for equal work. Just and favourable remuneration. Right to reasonable rest and leisure. Right to form trade unions. A minimum standard of living. Special treatment for mothers and children. “Free”, “compulsory” education. Right to participate in cultural life. Intellectual property rights. A social and international order that underpins these rights and freedoms.

Some of these cannot be implemented without adversely impacting the rights of others. But many of them are valid, and can be far better re-stated as rights of non-impedance. For example, the “right to work” becomes a right not to be impeded in seeking work.

Expectations

In an earlier essay on the Nolan Principles of Public Life, I gave a list of expectations, which individuals can reasonably have of how government should behave towards them. It may be summarized as follows:

• Selflessness: Everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed. (And as Locke told us, that means in the interests of every individual among them).
• Integrity: No-one in government may allow themselves to be inappropriately influenced.
• Objectivity: All government decisions must be impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit and the best evidence available.
• Accountability: Those in government must be held accountable for the effects on the governed of what they do.
• Openness: Government must act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner, and may not withhold information from the governed without very good cause.
• Honesty: All holders of government office must be truthful. (Also candid, straightforward and sincere).
• Leadership: Everyone in government must treat the governed with respect. And they must practise whatever they preach.

In conclusion

This essay has concentrated on how government should behave, not on how governments today actually do behave. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points I have made above, I’ll simply ask a question: How well do today’s governments measure up to the standards we ought to be able to expect of them?

Don’t laugh.

Neil Lock is campaign manager for Godalming and Ash branch of Reform UK.

Image credit on main page: Andy Feliciotti, Unsplash