John Locke's social contract theory appears, at first glance, to predict the growth of freedom and the concomitant recession of authority. Viewed in this way, John Locke's Second Treatise on Government presents a stark contrast, manifesting individual liberty as the dominant political value to which authority submits. A deeper look, however, reveals a much more complicated theory. Locke's system of government struggles to demonstrate how the prerogatives of the executive power can respect the values ​​of justice and equality supposedly imposed by the Law of Nature and the social contract. In Locke's tripartite government, where power is shared among the legislative, executive, and federal branches, "cases will inevitably arise which, depending on unforeseen and uncertain events, certain and unalterable laws could not resolve." , the executive, or "the prince", has the prerogative to act on behalf of the state, as long as his actions provide for the common good of the people. Locke erects his system of liberal government based on the understanding of human goodness inherent in the state of nature and, in doing so, necessarily confers excessive prerogatives on the prince. While Locke is careful to control significant violations of prerogative power, he leaves his society unprotected against rare or minor transgressions to liberty based on the belief in the unscrupulousness and narrow-mindedness of the Commonwealth majority. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Upon entering society, Locke postulates that man is guaranteed the right "not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary will of another." man” (IV.22), but rather to the civil laws that are supreme in society. In the limited cases "in which a strict and rigid observance of the laws can do harm" (XIV.159), the prince has the authority to exercise his prerogatives, as long as it is towards the end of the preservation of the State. However, Locke expects that society's citizens will not monitor the executive's actions carefully enough to prevent his arbitrary and harmful exercise of prerogatives. Indeed, the prerogative of the executive «is an undoubted prerogative, and is never questioned: in fact the people are very rarely scrupulous» (XIV.161). Note that Locke takes "scrupulous" to mean distracted, rather than morally unscrupulous. The carelessness with which Locke describes the people of society apparently creates an opportunity for extensive exploitation of the prerogative power of the executive. Furthermore, Locke argues that even when people fear a violation of the power entrusted to the executive, they are unlikely to “modify the recognized power.” defects of the structure to which they have been accustomed” (XIX.223). Therefore, Locke paints a picture of the masses of society as careless and narrow-minded. Even when injustices are perceived, individual cases of mistreatment are largely ignored. In reference to the majority, Locke writes that “instances of peculiar injustice, or oppression of here and there and of unfortunate men, do not move them” (XIX.230). According to the Law of Nature, the majority is primarily interested in the self-preservation of the majority. Locke expects that the Law of Nature and the inherent tendencies of the masses will prevent them from perceiving the errors of leaders, from noticing specific injustices against individuals, and from demanding change from their government. Given that Locke's government derives its legitimacy from the consensual path through which it is conceived, it seems entirely plausible that the executive can exercise legitimate, if arbitrary, prerogative powerand unjust, due to the short-sighted and stubborn nature of its citizens. However, Locke argues that the unjust exercise of executive prerogatives cannot continue indefinitely: while the people may be inattentive to slight and rare injustices committed by the executive in matters not addressed by law, they will take note of them and demand a change of the executive "if a long series of [executive] actions will show that the councils tend in that direction" (XIX.210), that is, if a long series of harmful actions of executive prerogative illuminate the wickedness of the prince. When benighted citizens finally realize the executive's wrongful actions, the people will consider “the tendency of the exercise of that prerogative to the good or harm of the people” (XIV.161) in determining whether action should be taken against the prince. . Since the people will consider the long chain of unjust actions as evidence of the prince's tendency towards iniquity, the majority will demand the prince's usurpation or punitive action through established political channels. Consequently, Locke believes that it is impossible for the executive to significantly abuse its prerogative power in a way that does not defend the liberties of its people. Indeed, despite his belief in the people's unscrupulousness, Locke argues that the prince's unjust prerogative actions need not go too far because the executive will limit his miserable prerogative actions. Locke argues that “this [unjust prerogative action] does not work until the inconvenience is so great that the majority feel it, are tired of it, and find the need to change it. But the executive power, or the wise princes, need never run the risk of this: and it is the thing which, of all others, they most need to avoid, as of all others the most dangerous" (XIV.168 ). Although it is not immediately clear whether Locke is arguing that the arbitrary exercise of prerogatives is dangerous to the executive or to the state, it is reasonable to assume that both hypotheses are true. Regarding the first, Locke assumes that all men are subject to the Law of Nature and necessarily guarantee above all their own self-preservation. By abusing his prerogatives, the prince would indirectly expose himself to the potential danger of loss of power and physical harm (if his actions threatened the physical safety of the majority) should the people rebel in any way. On the other hand, Locke could argue that the prince is intrinsically good and would avoid actions that endanger his citizens. This view is more consistent with Locke's theory of human nature. Therefore, while Locke concedes that the prince could, theoretically, abuse his prerogatives in areas not covered by law and infringe on the liberty of the citizens of the Commonwealth, it is in the prince's best interests to exercise his prerogative power solely for the preservation of the citizens' liberty . While it is reasonable to expect the executive authority to be aware of the personal dangers associated with impeding the individual liberties of its citizens, there are still ample opportunities for the prince to encroach on the freedom of his citizens for his own gain. prosperity. Certainly, the “wise ruler…” (XIV.164) will also be aware of the inattention of his citizens, their apathy towards individual cases of mistreatment and their tendency not to demand change in the government he is familiar with. A Machiavellian leader might deliberately violate the rights of his citizens in a minor way, in his own interest, without any negative personal consequences. Locke states this when he writes that “revolutions do not come about through every little mismanagement of affairs..158