Locke: Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)

John Locke's major work of political philosophy is often referred to as a major source for the Declaration of Independence, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. This work, authored in 1690, is a major statement of liberalism. Like Thomas Hobbes, Locke begins with humans living in a state of nature, a situation before the development of the state and government. The Lockeian state of nature was not an unpleasant place. Human reason led people to tend to leave one another alone in their respective pursuits. Natural law guides people's actions in the state of nature and their reason allows them to apprehend the essence of these laws. Thus, Locke expressed great confidence in human reason. However, inconveniences did result in the state of nature. If disagreements rose between people, it was not always easy to resolve these. If one person stole something from another, it was up to the victim to redress the injustice. And these shortcomings in the state of nature made individuals ultimately, rationally, decide that they should give up some of their freedom in order to secure order and protection of the fruits of their labor. Locke said: "[T]he enjoyment of the property he has in his state is very unsafe, very unsecure. . . . The great and chief end, therefore, of man's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property." As a result, people contract with one another to form civil society and government in order to preserve their rights under natural law, with the dominant right being termed property. And what happens if government does not protect rights under natural law? Revolution is thereby allowable. For instance, Locke notes one justification for suspending an existing government: "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. . . .[I]t devolves to the people to have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative, such as they shall think fit, provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society." Locke's work well illustrates basic tenets of liberalism, among which are: 1. Individualism (and its concomitants of limited government and certain rights, such as the right to property and to certain freedoms, and equality); 2. Materialism (material incentives are important; acquisition and enjoyment of material goods is altogether proper); 3. Faith in human reason; 4. Faith in the market as a way of distributing wealth and goods. Is Locke the philosopher of the American Revolution? Probably not. But he well articulated many of the major themes accepted by the Founders of the revolutionary movement

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government. Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change. His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality. His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

The Treatises of Government, particularly the Second Treatise, are cornerstone works in Western thought. The First Treatise is devoted primarily to demolishing the notion that monarchial rule is divinely sanctioned and is mainly of interest to scholars. The Second Treatise, however, is a fundamental work that can be read profitably by anyone with an interest in philosophy, ethics, and European history. The Second Treatise is relatively short and easy to read. This is the standard edition. When reading these books, it is important to bear in the mind that one of Locke's aims was to defend the Glorious Revolution which overthrew the Stuart monarchs of Britain. Locke then attempted not only to produce a vigorous attack on traditional justifications for monarchy (the First Treatise) but also a set of positive doctrines (the Second Treatise) which would provide a coherent alternative to the idea of divinely sanctioned monarchial power. The longest, and last, chapter in the Second Treatise is the one in which Locke outlines the circumstances under which governments may be overthrown. In the Second Treatise, Locke begins implicitly with a view of God as a beneficient Creator who endowed Man with sbustantial rational faculties, intrinsic rights, and dignity. These rational faculties lead to choices that allow the construction of justified and appropriate governments. In terms of rights, the key word is property, by which Locke means not only property in the sense of possessions but also property in themselves, essentially a certain freedom of choice, and what he terms "liberties" or basic human rights. In several important senses, these rights are inalienable. A man may contract with another for use of labor but cannot sell himself into slavery, and others may not deprive men of their property and liberties. Locke follows this line of argument to many important, and in the context of the time, novel conclusions. Slavery is forbidden. Children reaching the age of maturity are equals. Some of Locke's language can be construed as offering some rights to women. Locke develops an optimistic social contract theory in which men band together to overcome some of the defects of the state of nature. This is the origin of government, which rests on the consent of the governed and is supposed to be in the service of the governed. Locke devotes a fair amount of the Second Treatise to outlining his conception of political power, in many respects a juidicial one, and to a broad discussion of the structure of acceptable governments. While some important aspects of Locke's scheme, notably his affirmation of a social contract theory as the historical basis for government, are clearly wrong, many of his ideas became fundamental to our present ideas of a justified society. The notions of intrinsic human rights and government depending on consent are essential.The Second Treatise is a relatively short work and aspects of interpretation are ambiguous. A ve

Those of us living in liberal democracies owe tremendous intellectual debt to John Locke. His "Second Treatise" in particular helped lay the foundation for a political system that emphasized "life, liberty, and property." The First Treatise is interesting to skim through, though it is in the second where the Locke is most substantive. His Theory of Private Property, which could also be construed as a theory of value, is an unmistakable revolution in political thought. It is, as Locke contends, when man applies his labor to nature that he is entitled to it. Questions about environmental ethics or indegenous rights aside, this observation, made in a still heavily ecclesiastical society, is a brilliant one. Furthermore, Locke's understanding of the formation of government is based on a hypothetical "state of nature" account. Locke's arguments are intellectually pleasing, and his social-scientific models make intuitive sense. Given that, perhaps the only weakness of the work is its failure to adequately analyze such concepts as the social contract or his theory of labor-property relations. For example, Locke fails to seriously consider what we should do with states that are clearly formed by mere force. Indeed, he doesn't adequately address the possibility that such a state could justify its existence on the grounds that "better tyranny than nothing." While Locke believes that a state that doesn't respect private property cannot last for very long, history says otherwise. Of course, in retrospect it is easier to criticize Locke in these regards, but with Machiavelli before him it was not as though these ideas were not known. There are admittedly other inconsistencies, such as his view on taxation later in the book and on who "owns" the grass his serf cuts. Interestingly enough, Locke is unwilling to expound on the distinction between property garnered for the sake of personal enjoyment (possessions) and property garnered for the sake of profit. Nevertheless, the work is a passionate defense of a liberal government, and the points are persuasively argued. As long as the reader, as Locke himself urges, keeps a skeptical attitude, this work has much to offer.

John Locke enunciated the principles of government in a way that marched from the printed page to the stirring paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence (since Jefferson was greatly influenced by Locke). Thus anyone who wishes to understand the reasons why humans bind themselves into societies, and what the obligations of a people and their government should be to each other, should read this book. Peter Laslett provides an excellent edition with an extensive introduction (over 100 pages!) and copious notes. Locke is definitely deep reading, but those who are not afraid to ponder the whys and wherefores of government will be greatly rewarded