Since every person is a creation of God’s, and it must be God’s wish that we serve him through the abilities that he’s given us, to interfere with a man and his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is, his property, would be to interfere with God’s wishes. It is here that we begin to see the limits of men as well as the limits of the soveriegn. After all, how anyone interfere with the wishes of God? Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the sovereign. This sovereign is responsible to the will of the people, but has a protective authority, governing both over land and people. Locke believed that if a body of people, that is a community of people, chose to live and interrelate amongst each other, they must choose to live by a greater force, that is they must enter into a social contract. This force was the power of the majority manifested through the creation of a sovereign. Problems can arise, when individuals cannot agree. For this reason there must be a ruler and government to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man. The enforcement of rules is not as absolute as it may sound. Even with the existence of a limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given rights. As such, the sovereign, had no right to aquire or take away the property of another. If he did so he would be going against, God, the people, and all that is natural. The extent of the services of the existing sovereign is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of the people. Locke believed that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving the people and that there must not be parental, that is absolute authority. Yolton explains this like so, “If royal authority is derived from parental authority ... there would be as many kings as fathers... from parental power it necessarily follows either that that all fathers have royal authority - in which case a contradi...
