Locke: Of Paternal Power

In Chapter VI of Locke's Second Treastise, he speaks on paternal power. I believe this is a very important aspect of his teachings because it explains political and personal power and freedom of man early on. He says although it is stated as paternal power, power to is to be not appropriated only to the father, but to the mother as well. He goes on to express the equality of the man and woman's power over their children. Locke says "Though I have said above, that all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality..." Here, I believe is where he begins to explain paternal power, its requirements, freedoms, and limitations. Locke says paternal power is limited. It is limited through the minority of their children, also stated as the imperfection of childhood. He says that a father and mother are to nurture their children and inform their young minds, for they are without reason. And Locke says without reason, a man can never be free. He says paternal power cannot be corrupted by violence and power of obedience and submission. Until a "state of maturity" or by the age of 21, the children are to be governed by their parents, all the while respecting and honouring them. After the child becomes of age, the father and son are equally free and are subjects of the same law together. Finally he says the ultimate role of paternal power is to provide their offspring with protection, not restraint.

In my opinion, this is a very important aspect of Locke's philosophy because it expressed a notion of equality among free men, specifically the equality between a father and son. This chapter entertains a sense of preparation for young citizens and the path they would take in order to be considered "free men."

Locke said "And so lunatics and idiots are never set free from the governments of their parents." Who does he consider lunatics and idiots and how is he able to determine that they are of that nature? Are the lunatics and idiots those who are mentally incapable or just those who don't follow the teachings of their parents? Would those men never be free? I pose these questions because there is always the possibility that not all parents are of the nurturing and tender nature Locke speaks of. Does this mean that ultimately the children had no choice in their freedom and it rested solely in the hands of their parents? It would be hard to call that freedom at all!