Two Treatises of Government (Everyman's Library)

The Second Treatise is a deep exploration of the fundamentals of governance, starting from man in a state of nature and the need to move to following rules of government. But I found it quite wordy and repetitive.

This book uses the original and sometimes awkward text, which better editions often update to read more smoothly.
This book has zero introductory or other notations.
There is no publisher listed.
The spine looks cheap and you can't really read the title on the spine.

Buy a better-quality version if you care about books.

Reading this is very interesting and informative. The problem is that being written in the style of it's day it is like reading Socrates: You know the arguments that go around and around the same circle over and over and over until you get back to the beginning of the argument. When if one were Aristotle, you could have written this whole book in forty pages.

Goldie's edition is the best "Two Treatises" for beginners. PL's use of the 1600's spelling, and such, makes his edition only useful (largely) to the already-expert. And Goldie's edition is swank and clean. A great buy.

This product exceeded my expectations, was affordable, in great condition and is a page-flipper. Oh, how we have strayed from our godly roots in America and muzzled the pastors that the Lord sent us.

The Kindle version of this book is horrible. There is no Table of Contents. I had to hit "next page" hundreds of times to search through to try to find the Second Treatise which is all I need right now. I thought this was a deal at $.95, but was a waste of even that small sum of money. Is there a way to get a refund on a Kindle book?

This edition of Locke's masterpiece is filled with flaws. I've noticed these after only a few minutes of inspection: In the first place, it's falsely advertised (the title is TWO Treatises of Government, but it only includes the second). Second, it's supposed to be Two Treatises of CIVIL Government. Third, the format is awkward for a book like this. Fourth, There are no footnotes at all (not even translations when Locke cites non-english quotes). Fifth, there's no introduction. Sixth, there's almost no publishing information at all. Seventh, there are cheesy advertisements in the back. And finally, one of those ads has a typo.

On the plus side, the cover is nice, and it seems to be loyal to the original text (I only glanced at it (and still noticed all those flaws)), but this edition is God-awful in almost every other way.

This copy of "Two Treatises of Government & A Letter Concerning Toleration" is NOT and I repeat NOT the actual "Two Treatises," but is only the Second Treatise - those looking for both treatises - as the title suggests - will be disappointed. In short, HALF the book is missing.

Maybe there are two John Locke authors. I was looking for one who writes mysteries and this was a much more learned treatise. It might be interesting to the right person, so this review is more my fault than the author's.

Locke's Two Treatises is one of the greatest books in the Western canon on political philosophy. I had not read it in almost four decades and I found it to be both more imposing and more wrong-headed than in my first reading. Imposing because much of the history of political philosophy and political economics was influenced by this book. Wrong-headed because so much of it seems obviously wrong now.

That does not mean it should not be read. To read Locke and to argue internally with your reading is to learn how to do philosophy. The same can be said of reading Wittgenstein or Spinoza. Read Locke keeping a careful eye on how he uses the word property-how he slides back and forth between a meaning that is fairly common today (that of one's physical possessions) and a larger but less common meaning (that also includes one's person and liberties).

It is easy to come away from Locke thinking that the right to property is the most important and most foundational right. It is the first among equals of natural rights in this reading. It also is the basis for a (weak) argument that justifies a social right to inequality. The argument is based on the claim that the use of money led to inequality and to grow up in a society that uses money is to implicitly consent to the unequal distribution of wealth.
The problem is that I think that reading of Locke is somewhat correct and it has certainly been part of his influence on subsequent thought.

One of the other reviewers makes the claim that Locke is opposed to slavery. Well, yes and no. Locke was opposed to the same type of slavery that the American Founding Fathers were concerned about- the slavery of free men who are being tyrannized by someone who has usurped control of the government and who is no longer ruling by law. He was okay enough with chattel slavery to make provisions for it in his proposed Constitution for the Carolinas.

There are those who claim that Locke's interest is only historical now (for example, John Dunn). That he has no lessons to teach us these days. I would not agree with that. I regard him as I regard Marx- as a mighty teacher who made many errors and who still put forth some ugly truths that we are still dealing with. In that sense, we will never out grow Mr. Locke.

[NOTE: This review pertains only to the First Treatise; I have reviewed the Second Treatise in Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration.]

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher known as the first of the British empiricists; his political writings also strongly influenced the American revolutionaries, as well as the Declaration of Independence. His other books include An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. One,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. Two,The Reasonableness of Christianity, etc.

He begins with the statement, "Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our nation; that `tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less an Gentleman, should plead for't. And truly, I should have taken Sr. Rt. FIlmer's Patriarcha as any other Treatise... I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due a Treatise, that made such a noise at its coming abroad, and cannot but confess my self mightily surprised, that in a Book, which was to provide Chains for all Mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand..." (Pg. 175)

He comments on Genesis 3:16 ["... In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children... thy Husband, he shall rule over thee"]: "will any one say, that Eve, or any other Woman, sinn'd, if she were brought to bed without those multiplied Pains God threatens her here with? Or that either of our Queens Mary or Elizabeth, had they Married any of their Subjects, had been by this Text put into a Political Subjection to him? or that he thereby should have had Monarchial Rule over her? God, in this text... only foretels what should be the Womans Lot, how by the providence he would order it so, that she should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the Laws of Mankind and customs of Nations have ordered it so; and there is, I grant, a Foundation in Nature for it." (Pg. 209-210)

He observes, "Property, whose original is from the Right a Man has to use any of the Inferior Creatures, for the Subsistence and Comfort of his Life, is for the benefit and sole Advantage of the Proprietor, so that he may even destroy the thing, that he has Property in by his use of it, where need requires: but Government being for the Preservation of every Mans Right and Property, by preserving him from the Violence of Injury of others, is for the good of the Governed. For the Magistrates Sword being a Terror to Evil Doers, and by that Terror to inforce Men to observe the positive Laws of the Society, made conformable to the Laws of Nature, for the public good... the Sword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone." (Pg. 247)

He asserts, "Nor can Primogeniture have any Pretence to a right of solely Inheriting either Property or Power... Adam's Property, or Private Dominion, could not convey any Sovereignty or Rule to his Heir, who not having a Right to inherit all his Fathers' Possessions, could not thereby come to have any Sovereignty over his brethren: and therefore if any Sovereignty on account of his Property, had been vested in Adam, which in Truth there was not; yet it would have Died with him." (Pg. 250)

Far less important than Locke's Second Treatise (which is included in this volume, although I have not reviewed it here), His First Treatise is still important reading for anyone studying the development of Locke's political philosophy. (And it should be noted that his Second Treatise begins by citing his First Treatise, so it is presupposed throughout the Second Treatise.

[NOTE: This review pertains only to the First Treatise; I have reviewed the Second Treatise in Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration.]

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher known as the first of the British empiricists; his political writings also strongly influenced the American revolutionaries, as well as the Declaration of Independence. His other books include An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. One,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. Two,The Reasonableness of Christianity, etc.

He begins with the statement, "Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our nation; that `tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less an Gentleman, should plead for't. And truly, I should have taken Sr. Rt. FIlmer's Patriarcha as any other Treatise... I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due a Treatise, that made such a noise at its coming abroad, and cannot but confess my self mightily surprised, that in a Book, which was to provide Chains for all Mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand..." (Pg. 175)

He comments on Genesis 3:16 ["... In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children... thy Husband, he shall rule over thee"]: "will any one say, that Eve, or any other Woman, sinn'd, if she were brought to bed without those multiplied Pains God threatens her here with? Or that either of our Queens Mary or Elizabeth, had they Married any of their Subjects, had been by this Text put into a Political Subjection to him? or that he thereby should have had Monarchial Rule over her? God, in this text... only foretels what should be the Womans Lot, how by the providence he would order it so, that she should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the Laws of Mankind and customs of Nations have ordered it so; and there is, I grant, a Foundation in Nature for it." (Pg. 209-210)

He observes, "Property, whose original is from the Right a Man has to use any of the Inferior Creatures, for the Subsistence and Comfort of his Life, is for the benefit and sole Advantage of the Proprietor, so that he may even destroy the thing, that he has Property in by his use of it, where need requires: but Government being for the Preservation of every Mans Right and Property, by preserving him from the Violence of Injury of others, is for the good of the Governed. For the Magistrates Sword being a Terror to Evil Doers, and by that Terror to inforce Men to observe the positive Laws of the Society, made conformable to the Laws of Nature, for the public good... the Sword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone." (Pg. 247)

He asserts, "Nor can Primogeniture have any Pretence to a right of solely Inheriting either Property or Power... Adam's Property, or Private Dominion, could not convey any Sovereignty or Rule to his Heir, who not having a Right to inherit all his Fathers' Possessions, could not thereby come to have any Sovereignty over his brethren: and therefore if any Sovereignty on account of his Property, had been vested in Adam, which in Truth there was not; yet it would have Died with him." (Pg. 250)

Far less important than Locke's Second Treatise (which is included in this volume, although I have not reviewed it here), His First Treatise is still important reading for anyone studying the development of Locke's political philosophy. (And it should be noted that his Second Treatise begins by citing his First Treatise, so it is presupposed throughout the Second Treatise.

[NOTE: This review pertains only to the First Treatise; I have reviewed the Second Treatise in Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration.]

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher known as the first of the British empiricists; his political writings also strongly influenced the American revolutionaries, as well as the Declaration of Independence. His other books include An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. One,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. Two,The Reasonableness of Christianity, etc.

He begins with the statement, "Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our nation; that `tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less an Gentleman, should plead for't. And truly, I should have taken Sr. Rt. FIlmer's Patriarcha as any other Treatise... I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due a Treatise, that made such a noise at its coming abroad, and cannot but confess my self mightily surprised, that in a Book, which was to provide Chains for all Mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand..." (Pg. 175)

He comments on Genesis 3:16 ["... In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children... thy Husband, he shall rule over thee"]: "will any one say, that Eve, or any other Woman, sinn'd, if she were brought to bed without those multiplied Pains God threatens her here with? Or that either of our Queens Mary or Elizabeth, had they Married any of their Subjects, had been by this Text put into a Political Subjection to him? or that he thereby should have had Monarchial Rule over her? God, in this text... only foretels what should be the Womans Lot, how by the providence he would order it so, that she should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the Laws of Mankind and customs of Nations have ordered it so; and there is, I grant, a Foundation in Nature for it." (Pg. 209-210)

He observes, "Property, whose original is from the Right a Man has to use any of the Inferior Creatures, for the Subsistence and Comfort of his Life, is for the benefit and sole Advantage of the Proprietor, so that he may even destroy the thing, that he has Property in by his use of it, where need requires: but Government being for the Preservation of every Mans Right and Property, by preserving him from the Violence of Injury of others, is for the good of the Governed. For the Magistrates Sword being a Terror to Evil Doers, and by that Terror to inforce Men to observe the positive Laws of the Society, made conformable to the Laws of Nature, for the public good... the Sword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone." (Pg. 247)

He asserts, "Nor can Primogeniture have any Pretence to a right of solely Inheriting either Property or Power... Adam's Property, or Private Dominion, could not convey any Sovereignty or Rule to his Heir, who not having a Right to inherit all his Fathers' Possessions, could not thereby come to have any Sovereignty over his brethren: and therefore if any Sovereignty on account of his Property, had been vested in Adam, which in Truth there was not; yet it would have Died with him." (Pg. 250)

Far less important than Locke's Second Treatise (which is included in this volume, although I have not reviewed it here), His First Treatise is still important reading for anyone studying the development of Locke's political philosophy. (And it should be noted that his Second Treatise begins by citing his First Treatise, so it is presupposed throughout the Second Treatise.

In his seminal work, English philosopher John Locke details the establishment of a just government. In the First Treatise, Locke eviscerates the arguments of Sir Robert Filmer, who attempted to derive monarchical authority from God's charge to Adam to subdue the Earth. This section reads a bit slow, especially if you're short on Biblical familiarity (as I am), since very few monarchies exist in the world today, and those that do are not justified through Judeo-Christian traditions. As expected, the language is a touch antiquated, but far from unreadable. The Second Treatise is the highlight of the text. Here, Locke derives a framework for legitimate government from the consent of naturally free individuals who seek to protect themselves and their property against the aggression of others. The concepts of a State of Nature and social contract proposed here by Locke (and also by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan) reflect the America of Locke's lifetime and still influence modern political philosophy. Though Locke leaves unanswered important questions like the description of a just war and an justification for the African slave trade, his Treatises remain a foundation for Western political thought.

Peter Laslett has produced a first-rate commentary on John Locke and his theories of natural rights (including property rights), limited and constitutional government, and justified rebellion. Locke wrote his first draft during the period 1679-1683 to provide a theoretical justification for resistance to the Sovereign. Later, during his exile in Holland, the draft was completed and published in 1690.

King Charles II reacted harshly to the Whig's libertarian antics at the Parliament of 1681, prompting Shaftsbury, Sidney, and other noted Whigs into secret "consultations verging on treason, Locke went along", says Laslett. Monmouth planned to assassinate the King (Rye House Plot) but Charles found out, then blamed the Whigs. Shaftsbury fled to Holland, Sidney has head removed, and Locke fled because he was "a suspected man . . . of . . . treasonable activity . . . as Sidney had done", says Laslett. He adds "Locke had by this time written a work against the government, . . . 'Two Treatises of Government'".

"The objective existence of a body of natural law is an essential presupposition of his political theory . . . [a] stand-pat attitude", Laslett says of Locke. "Natural law [is] . . . a command of God, a rule of reason, and a law in . . . nature", he adds. "'Two Treatises' relies heavily upon natural law, but . . . is never analysed there. It is all about freedom and consent, . . . nowhere discussed as subjects in themselves", he continues. "Political power is defined, and so is property . . . , but not in philosophic terms, . . . the issue of justice and property is never raised".

However, according to Laslett, "Locke presented a set of principles of an entirely superior order of effectiveness than any before written in the English language". Laslett says that Locke believed that men "do not own themselves", rather they are "of God", "his servants", "his property". From this, Laslett says that Locke believed that "we are all free and we are all equal". Locke himself said "For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure". The student of history sees here a very different basis for property rights from that of Williams Wollaston's fifty years later. Wollaston claimed self-ownership as the basis for property rights.

Locke said "The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions". The important distinction here from Wollaston is that men are God's creations, all equal, and to agress against one another is not so much a violation of his person/self-ownership, as it is a violations of God's intent - that all men are created equal. The natural law, Reason, may allow one to judge his actions toward another whether they agress against God's property and His intent for that property, "unless", said Locke "the Lord and Master of them all, should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty".

What is a Declaration made manifest? And by what standard? Locke gave a vague answer - "a Law of Nature . . . which obliges everyone: And Reason, which is that Law, Teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it". A vicious cirlce? I think so. However, this is Locke's standard - "The law of Nature . . . is the Law of Reason". It is "the common bond whereby humane kind is united into on fowllowship and societie".

So what happens if one's reason, volitional as it is, is not engaged? Locke said "For having quitted Reason . . . he renders himself liable to be destroied [sic] by the injur'd person and the rest of mankind, that will joyn with him in the execution of Justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute." It appears here that "injur'd" is the standard by which one may determine if another has "quitted reason". Locke referred to reason-quitters as those "with whom Mankind can have neither Society nor Security".

On property, Locke said "Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, that excludes the common right of other men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Proerpty of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."

Locke's theory of the individual's natural right to property and his "homestead" principle for acquiring previously unowned property by "mixing one's labour" with it, provided the basis for his theory of the limited and revocable powers of any government. Locke's ideas were to provide a fundamental justification for the American colonist's revolt against the British empire and his ideas remain a classic formulation of libertarian political theory.

This is a review of this edition, not the brilliant author. The book is printed in 6 pt font, which most normal eyes under normal illumination will find so stressful and hard on the eyes it is not wroth the effort. If snyone can suggest a better edition, I'd be grateful!

An amazing intellectual honesty and courageous spirit John Locke had. This book should be read with context of time period in mind. John Locke is more appreciative and thoughtful of the independence of man than many are today- those who are independent and free because of men like John Locke. Perhaps, some will argue that his theories were incomplete or not tolerable enough, but the man is a major contributor to the Englightenment. There is much to be thankful for.

The first treatise is a response to Robert Filmer's "Patriarcha". Filmer was a monarchist who strongly believed that Scripture proved that authoritarianism was natural and patriarchy its vessel- following the line of Adam. Locke strongly reputes Filmer's reasoning. The first treatise can be summed up on page 77: "And there would be an end of all civil government, if the assignment of civil power were by divine institution to the heir, and yet by that divine institution the person of the heir could not be known. This paternal regal power being by divine right only his, it leaves no room for human prudence, or consent, to place it any where else; for if only one man hath a divine right to the obedience of mankind, nobody can claim that obedience but he that can show that right; nor can men's consciences by any other pretence be obliged to it. And thus this doctrine cuts up all government by the roots."

The second treatise is Locke's argument for civil government of the people- not monarchy. He strongly argues in defense of the individual, property rights, freedom of conscience, man's equality, ending status quo, elected representation, and much more. He makes a strong case for what he believes is the purpose of government and how those governments should avoid arbitrary power. Having studied Thomas Jefferson, it is obvious that Jefferson invested much stock in Locke's ideas. He parallels Locke in many ways.

"A Letter Concerning Toleration" would benefit many Christians and non-Christians. In fact, Christopher Hitchens could have saved himself some time and a book- "God is Not Great"- had he read John Locke's response that ironically was written 300 years prior to Hitchens' criticism. Due to time and space- I could go on in details about what a wonderful piece of literature I believe this to be- but I will spare the reader.

There are 3 essays at the end of Locke's letters. The first, written by John Dunn, who obviously has the hots for 4 syllable words and plugging fellow historians. The second, by Ruth Grant, who seems a tad bitter and unappreciative that Locke didn't go far enough with women's liberation. I suppose he was too busy with that whole dismantling the monarchy thing. The third, by Ian Shapiro who gives a fair and enjoyable summation of Locke's views on Democracy.

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 in the 1770s.

This is one of the most important works ever written. In the Second Treatise, Locke lays down the theory of natural law and how it relates to the individual as well as to government. Although he was not the first or the only writer tp elaborate such a theory, his interpretation is clear and eloquent, as can be seen in its use in the Declaration of Independence. The First Treatise was basically a refutation of the now obscure authoritarian work "Patriarcha" by Sir Robert Filmer. Although it is an interesting piece, it has long been rightfully overshadowed by its partner. If for some reason you are actually seeking a refutation of Filmer, I would refer you to Algernon Sidney's more lengthy "Discourses Concerning Government." By far the finest edition of this work is Peter Laslett's, and I consider the purchase of any other edition a sorry waste of money. In his lengthy introductory essays, he traces the historical,political, and philosophical background of John Locke's life and ideas as well as the actual writing of the work itself. His greatest contribution however, is proving that the work was written well before the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

John Locke presents in "Second Treatise on Government," his theory of government which he believes is essential to promulgate "lest men fall into the dangerous belief that all government in the world is merely the product of force and violence."

Locke defines political power as, "a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good." In order to explain political power, Locke presents his theory of the state of nature. To better explain his thoughts on the state of nature, he argues that, basically, in a state of nature there is also a state of equality. Locke asserts that all men are created equal, and therefore, no person should violate another person's rights. Further, Locke argues that if a person should ever harm another, since as we are all equal doing so would essentially be harming ones self.

Liberty is a reccuring theme and prominently featured in Locke's writings. Locke asserts that liberty is the freedom to be governed exclusively by the laws of nature and by nothing and no one else. After reading this book, one might wonder what Locke's personal feelings were regarding such issues as the European slave trade and/ or the displacement and subsequent genocide of Native Americans Indians, which occurred during his lifetime.

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 lived from 1632 to 1704. His Second Treatise of Government was published in 1690. The edition used for this review is published by Hackett, with an introduction by C.B. Macpherson.

Hobbes' Leviathan was published thirty-nine years earlier, in 1651. Locke, in the Second Treatise, does not refer to Leviathan directly or mention Hobbes. Locke's view of the state of nature, i.e. the situation of the individual outside of any established government, differs from Hobbes in significant ways.

For Hobbes, in the state of nature there are no rules for behavior. Choices are made instinctively according to appetite and aversion and nothing else. Consequently, the state of nature is a state of war in which every individual is against the rest. There is no morality and no law, and therefore no property rights or right of ownership of any sort. To possess something is not to own it. Only through the establishment of the Commonwealth and Its absolute sovereign is this condition of war removed.

Locke sees the state of nature as governed by implied rules accessible to reason, and each individual as morally obligated to follow these rules. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions [...]." (9) Mankind is "the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker" and therefore "his property". (9) The rights of the individual exist because of this fundamental transcendent property right of the Deity. In harming another you harm what belongs to God.

Under this understanding of the state of nature, "all men are naturally in [...] a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." (8) Because in the state of nature, there is no established government, the enforcement of the law of nature (no harm may be done to another in his "life, health, liberty, or possessions") is in the right of each individual, since all individuals in the state of nature have equal rights. If any individual has the right to enforce the law of nature, then everyone has the right; and if no individual has that right, then the law of nature cannot be upheld in the state of nature.

Locke puts the moral right of enforcement of law - both of which (law and right of enforcement) he sees as given and operative in the state of nature - in the power of each individual until the establishment of government, after which it passes, via the agreement and consent of the individuals, to the sovereign State. Hobbes contends that morality and law are born with the Commonwealth, and are born through an understanding of the need for cooperation in order to survive.

For Hobbes, the state of nature is identical with the state of war. For Locke, the state of war can arise in the state of nature but it is a disruption of the equanimity of the natural state of mankind: "force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge." (15) Locke sees the state of war as an unreasonable aberration within the peace of nature, whereas for Hobbes it is the norm. Hobbes, however, does not see mankind as being reasonable at all until they understand the need for cooperation in order to survive, soon after which they establish a Commonwealth.

Locke wants a government in order to shelter the individual against the aggression and force of others, which purpose is, in a noteworthy sense, to recover the equanimity that should have been (according to natural law) the constant idyllic condition in nature. Locke recognizes that the State can act with force (as it may) but without right (as it may not) against an individual, and in such an instance the state of war ensues between the two, and the individual has the right of self-defense (which extends as far as necessary to end the wrongful aggression) against the State. "Whoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself in a state of war with those against whom he uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor." (116-117)

For Hobbes, the State determines law and so the State can do no wrong. Force without right is not possible within the Hobbesian Commonwealth. Locke says the State's power is regulated by the natural rights of the individual, rights existing prior to the State and which cannot under any condition nor by any authority be abrogated; and it is only through the ongoing consent of the individuals within a State that the State has any power whatsoever.

Only with the Commonwealth, says Hobbes, is there property. Prior to that, you took what you could and held it until someone took it from you; but in no moral or legal sense did it ever belong to you, no matter how you got it, even being given it without force by another. For Hobbes, all property exists only through the power of the Commonwealth and hence, in the final analysis, all property belongs to the Commonwealth. In the extreme case, this extends to the individual's self-ownership. There are no rights but what the Commonwealth bestows.

Locke says that an individual's right of ownership exists in the state of nature and that the law of nature warrants it. This keeps property morally associated with the individual, even within the State, and it remains then under the individual's right of ownership. This is especially the case with an individual's self-ownership (with the understanding, which Locke doesn't stress but has given, that ultimately one belongs to God).

"The great and chief end [...] of men's uniting into common-wealths [sic], and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property." (66)

Property is the consequence of action. If I make it, it is mine. To begin: my body is mine and belongs to no other, and so nobody has any right to it but me; the labor of my body is mine, and so whatever this labor creates out of nature (which belongs to no-one in particular), by "mixing" itself with nature and "annexing" nature to these actions of my body, is mine. This applies to the picking of an apple from a tree that belongs to no-one as well as it does to the making of a thing. "The labour [sic] that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them." (20)

The notion of property gets complex even in the state of nature. Barter of goods and the idea that the value of a thing is from the labor associated with it, led to "the invention of money". With money it became possible to own more than one could use, to store up the valuable property of money rather than directly usable, valuable things. Before money, there was no incentive to labor for more than you could use, but once there was money, labor could be stored, so to speak (Locke doesn't say this), in money.

Later parts of the Second Treatise are concerned with the form of government once the choice of many individuals has been made to establish one. Locke sees the origins in the family, with the authority of the parents (often the father alone) continuing beyond the parental authority during the sons' and daughters' childhood.

Obviously Locke doesn't need praise from me. Every high school senior in America should read the Second Treatise on Government, if only to understand where our political traditions come from. That said, readers should know that the Laslett edition delivers Locke in the original, with all the archaic spellings and capitalizations. I didn't find this distracting, but others might. More seriously, Laslett's long introductory essay assumes a great deal of knowledge of 17th century British politics and culture. Readers coming to the subject for the first time will be lost.

I'm no genius. A pedant, perhaps, and an arrogant jerk, but not a guy with the kind of education it seems other reviewers have. I can't tell you who Locke's friends were or what his political connections were, either. I have some vague notion that Locke's and Mill's ideas influenced the philisophical basis of the American founding documents, but I'm just a soldier who sometimes likes to bite off more than he can chew--I wan't to know the stuff them smart people do, and don't see any reason I shouldn't!

So if you're like me, let me encourage you to get this book. Your friends will almost certainly call you a nerd (after all, who reads 17th century political philosophy for FUN?), and it'll take a few pages to cut your teeth on the language, but after you get going, this book is a breeze. I can't tell you the philisophical doctrines nor their framework in several distinct points, but I can tell you this: the language, to one of average education, was a little hard to wrap my brain around, but what worked for me was just to set a pace and trudge through it without getting hung up on the one sentence that twisted my mind into a pretzel. After a few pages (maybe 10 or 15) I found that my brain was correcting for the nature of the wording, and for the rest of the book, I swear, I understood what was going on through the second treatise and the Letter, too.

After I got going, I was all highlighters and folded corners, but it had too many profound and simple statements to save them all in my head. If you're even vaguely political, this book will make points as absolutely applicable to today's world politics as it did to those of the bygone time. It applies from everything from the crazy long haired hippie communist democrats to the crazy power-mad Neocons, but it'll make you wish with all your heart that both ruling parties of American Government would give it a quick read over the recess.

Anyhow, I rate this work as 4 stars out of 5. Mostly that's because I have absolutely nothing to compare it against, and am therefore hesitant to give it 5 stars, because it's the first political philosophy I've ever read. But dammit, it seems like a pretty good one to me. Just don't let it scare you off, you don't need to be a genious to understand this. Let's even the playing field between us regular people and the academic jerks (love you guys, really, just making a point) that like to write reviews even Locke wouldn't understand :) This stuff is great, and it's great for even those who, like me, are only moderately intelligent readers.

In his book, Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632 - 1704) writes that all humans are born equal with the same ability to reason for themselves, and because of this, government should have limitations to ensure that people are free from the arbitrary will of another person, according to the laws of nature. Government, in Locke's view, is a social contract between the people in control, and the people who submit to it.
The editor of this edition, C. B. Macpherson, gives a little background and overview in his introduction to this book. He writes that the book "was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified." (p. viii)
Locke's book served as a philosophical justification for revolting against tyrannical monarchies in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. His book was practically quoted in the Declaration of Independence.
Locke lays out his basis for government on the foundation that people are able to reason. Because of this, people have inherent freedoms or natural rights. Though he believed in reason, Locke was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. The mind starts as a "tabula rasa", latin for an empty slate. As soon as we are born, we immediately begin learning ideas. Thus, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Nevertheless, Locke had an unshakable faith in human reason. He believed that people do learn what is right and wrong, regardless of what they choose to do. Locke believed that faith in God, certain moral norms and understanding consequences were inherent in human reason. So, even though people acquire everything they know about the world through the senses, they are able to think for themselves and reason at a higher level about what they learn.
Locke presumed that there are universally recognized principles and that the consequences are practically scientific. He was greatly influenced by Isaac Newton (1647-1727) who wrote The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Locke took the ideas that there were "natural laws" in science and tried to extend that to society.
Natural laws, or rights, in Locke's view, are obvious and learned through human reasoning, and apply to everyone. They are also called "self-evident," which appears in The Declaration of Independence. All humans are created equal, and Locke bases this idea on the golden rule, that people are to do to others as they would have others do to them. Natural equality is the basis of the first and most important "natural law" which is to care for one another. (p. 9) Locke believes that with or without government, there were universal natural rights.
Without government, people are unprotected from harm by other people. Where there is no government, people are free to do as they please, even to harm others. In this state, natural laws still apply, such as the right of people to protect themselves and seek reparation for injuries done to them. However, people are naturally inconsistent in executing punishments, because they have a propensity to act out of hate or revenge. Therefore, laws are necessary in a civil society to fairly arbitrate justice. The purpose of creating a civil society is to avoid major conflicts and keep peace.
Thus, civil government is a "contract" between people to regulate their affairs fairly. According to Locke's theories, people enter into a social contract by forming governments that will preserve order.
Locke describes a civil government as being democratic with some checks to ensure that it does not overstep its boundaries, and having both legislative and executive powers. A civil government is democratic or representative, meaning laws are created by the consent of the people through the voice of a majority vote. The legislature should represent the people equally based on population. (Salus populi suprema lex) All people are subject to the law, including the rulers-no one is above the law. Even the legislature needs "standing rules" to keep it from over-stepping its boundaries. Locke advocated the principle of division of powers. Because the legislature only meets at appointed times to create or revise laws, there needs to be an executive power that is constantly enforcing the laws. So Locke describes a division of the legislative and executive powers.
In contrast to what was being claimed by the rulers of the time, Locke taught that the purpose of government is to serve and benefit the people and that it should be controlled by the people for which the government was made. His claim that people have the right to rebel against government was controversial. Second Treatise of Government served as a foundation for future political philosophies.

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 very good example is the emphasis on property. Locke is regarded commonly, especially by conservative intellectuals, as the defender of private property strictly construed. There is some justification for this interpretation. On the other hand, in the state of nature at any rate, Locke is quite clear that individuals should use only what they need for reasonable subsistence and he is opposed clearly to social dominance in any society. Locke's view of how economic property is created is quite interesting. In the state of nature at least, property is created by the admixture of human labor with the fruits of the earth. This is a labor theory of value and in Locke's case, the value created has not only an economic component but also a moral dimension. The labor theory of value had a distinguished history in early economic thought and ended up being a prominent component of Marxist political theory. This makes Locke not only an ancestor of 19th century laissez-faire theorist but also of their greatest critic, Karl Marx.

The genius of the author is reflected in this work, one of the most influential in the world. It is so because basically all modern states are based on what is here expressed. Contrary to previous theories of Hobbes as the absolutism. O divine right monarchies. Here we write about everything that is modern society, from the point of view of government and structure. It is interesting to read the sequence of arguments and explanations.

John Locke is clearly one of the greatest political philosophers ever and the Two Treatises show why. Natural Rights, Origin of Property, State of Nature, State of War, Law, Role of Good Government it is all here and described beautifully. There is no doubt the founders were clearly influenced by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson said the 3 greatest influences on him were Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, and Francis Bacon. This book, The Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers are classics that are never out of date.

Modern Liberals spurn their heritage and have devolved into socialism and communism but once upon a time Liberalism wasn't a dirty word however it is now up to Conservatives to carry the mantle of Liberty since Modern Liberals have abandoned it. To do that though Conservatives need to read this work. The fight for Liberty is never over equality of outcomes, complacency, laziness, and tyranny all fight against it but they will all fail against an educated populous who do not fall prey to the siren song of nihilism, relativism, and despotism.

The American Declaration of Independence and Revolution cannot be understood without a grounding in the writings of John Locke, particularly, in Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The American founders adopted the contract theories expounded by Locke in his Second Treatise in order to justify their break from mother England under King George III. This work is thus a classic for both English and American political history.

A. Introduction
The Second Treatise of Government works to undermine the ideas presented in Hobbes' Leviathan by arguing that government is agreed upon by the free contract and that rulers hold their power through the free consent of the people. When the free consent of the people in establishing government is violated, the people may revoke this consent and overthrow the government. A brief synopsis of the work follows:

Chapter 1. Of Political Power
Locke opens his treatise by arguing against Filmerfs theory of the divine right of sovereignty and concludes his first chapter by defining the purpose and scope of political power: gPolitical power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public goodh (÷ 3).

Chapter 2. Of the State of Nature
Locke defines the state of nature as a state gof perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other manh (÷ 4). In this state of equality among men, all may do as they please. All remain in this state until they decide to

Chapter 3. Of the State of War
The state of war is ga state of enmity and destructionh (÷ 16) that arises whenever one member, in the state of nature where all are equal, attempts to put another ginto his absolute powerh (÷17). Thus, while the state of nature is comprised of g[m]en living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them,h the state of war is gforce, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for reliefh (÷ 19). Thus, where there is no common authority to judge among men, they live in a state of nature. When force without right is imposed on a manfs person, a state of war arises, whether or not a common authority judges among men.

Chapter 4. Of Slavery
Man lives in natural liberty when he is gfree from any superior power on earth [and from] the will or legislative authority of man,h but is governed only by the law of nature (÷21). Liberty in society, in contrast, arises when man lives gunder no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in ith (÷ 21). Like Hobbes, Locke argues that the right to be free from absolute, arbitrary power is so absolute that it cannot be relinquished (÷ 22). Because onefs life is inalienable, man gcannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any oneh (÷ 22). Slavery is thus the state of war extended gbetween a lawful conqueror and a captiveh (÷ 23).

Chapter 5. Of Property
Locke asserts that the earth has been given to every man gin commonh (÷ 24). However, g[t]he elabourf of his body and the eworkf of his hands, we may say, are properly hish (÷ 26). Private property thus only arises when one exerts himself to appropriate some good; gHe that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himselfh (÷ 27). However, when one acquires more than he can consume, he has goffended against the common law of Nature,h for he has ginvaded his neighbours share, for he had no right farther than his use called for any of themh (÷ 37). However, the invention of money can solve this problem by allowing one with excess to trade his goods before their useful lifespan is terminated.

Chapters 6 and 7. Of Paternal Power and Political or Civil Society
Although all men are created equally, gAge or virtue may give men a just precedencyh (÷ 54). For this reason, children are under their parentsf power until they are old enough to function independently. However, they remain throughout their lives under a political power that passes laws and executes them in order to protect their property and gpunish the offences of all those of that society,h thus establishing a political society where gevery one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by ith (÷ 87). Absolute monarchies violate this system and are thus ginconsistent with civil societyh (÷ 90), for the monarch himself is considered to be the law and is thus neither bound by it nor punished for its violation.

Chapter 8. Of the Beginning of Political Societies
When men agree to establish one community or government, they gmake one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the resth (÷ 95). These body politics are consensual in their origins, though they may later evolve into despotic regimes.

Chapter 9. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government
Society and government arise when men living in a state of nature unite into a commonwealth and put themselves under a government for gthe preservation of their propertyh (÷ 124), which Locke defines as their glives, liberties and estatesh (÷ 123). Locke goes as far as even writing that gThe great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wantingh (÷ 124). Thus, while man previously lived in a state of nature where he could undertake any action not prohibited by the law of nature, in new society, through his free will, he voluntarily restricts this freedom gto do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the law of Natureh (÷ 128). Relinquishing his gequality, liberty, and executive powerh (÷ 131), he agrees to submit to the positive law enacted in the political society and also gives up his gthe power of punishingh evil doers, a power which is transferred to the political society for the preservation of the public good.

Chapters 18 and 19. Of Tyranny and the Dissolution of Government
It is in chapters 18 and 19 the arguments of Locke that have inspired the American founders are presented in their full force. Locke begins by defining tyranny as gthe exercise of power beyond right c not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage,h when the governorfs actions gare not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passionh (÷ 199).
Tyrannical acts do necessarily give rise to the right of the subjects of a political society to resist the authority, whenever the authority gexceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not.h When such a case arises, the authority ceases to be a magistrate, and gacting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of anotherh (÷ 202). However, this does not mean that any member of the political society may oppose the authority for every slight occasion or unlawful exercise of power, for this would gunhinge and overturn all polities, and instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusionh (÷ 203). Locke goes on to enumerate specific situations in which opposition to authority is not justified. For example, gwhere the injured party may be relieved and his damages repaired by appeal to the law, there can be no pretence for force, which is only to be used where a man is intercepted from appealing to the lawh (÷ 207). This ideas are echoed in the Declaration of Independence,
In chapter 19, Locke moves on to discuss when the opposition to government and the dissolution of the same is justified. He lists several situations that may arise where the dissolution of government and the formation of a new government is proper. This situation arises, for example, when ga single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislativeh (÷ 214) or when gby the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the peopleh (÷ 216). With respect to the question of gwhether the prince or legislative act contrary to [the peoplefs] trust,h Locke replies: gThe people shall be judgeh (÷ 240). In the same manner, gIf a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people in a matter where the law is silent or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, c the proper umpire in such a case should be the body of the peopleh (÷ 242), for it is ultimately the people who have the best judgment as to whether the government and authority is fulfilling its proper end of securing their rights and interests.

B. The Philosophical Justification for the American Revolution
Lockefs ideals would ultimately reach the American founders, who frequently discussed his writings and their implications for the political society. The Second Treatise gave an intellectual basis for principles that are at the heart of the contemporary American Republic, such as the fundamental right to private property and the inalienable rights to life and liberty. The parallels between the Treatise and the ideals, language, and principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are nothing short of remarkable. In the first paragraph of the Declaration, the founders declare the basis for their decision to gdissolve the political bandsh which have connected them with England, applying the principles of chapter 19 of Lockefs Treatise. They justify their decision on the gLaws of Natureh that entitle them to a gseparate and equalh station with England, a concept that sounds notably like Lockefs state of nature, where all live as equals obeying only the law of nature and enjoying the freedoms guaranteed thereby. The inalienable rights that the founders invoke are those that Locke includes in his definition of property: life and liberty. The compact between the governed and the governors that Locke discusses is described by the founders as government gderiving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.h The founders further identity the right of people to galter or to abolishh government and to ginstitute new Governmenth when the established powers become destructive of their principal end: to secure menfs rights. Just as Locke in chapter 18 imposes limits on the rights of citizens to resist and oppose their governments, so too do the founders recognize that gPrudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes,h but rather, should be suffered gwhile evils are sufferable.h However, gwhen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.h This is the enactment of Lockefs chapter 19 enumeration of the specific situations that occasion a dissolution and change of government, such as when the prince by his arbitrary power acts gwithout the consent and contrary to the common interest of the peopleh (÷ 216).

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is the Natural Rights philosophy's greatest essay. Locke, an English freethinker, wrote both his Frist and Second Treatise on Government to refute the patriarchial and absolutist writings of Sir Robert Filmer. Locke clearly believes man is imbued with the natural right to life, liberty, and property. He believes men have a right to live free from tyrannical government.

Locke shows how when a government degenerates into tyranny the "people" have a right to revolt and throw off such government. Sound familar? Jefferson wrote these words into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believes that liberty is a man's right by his very nature of being human. He points out how that men come together to form a government, based upon a social contract, and that the rulers or government must abide by that contract or man returns to his natural state. In the natural state men are not bound to the current ruler but may institute new government for their security and protection.

Although he believed that government should not be changed lightly or on a whim, and believed that the ruler must violate the contract and usurp power, he nevertheless pointed out that government is of men, not God or gods. He repudiated the doctrine propagated by Filmer, that rulers are appointed to rule by God, ie: the Divine Right of Kings.

This "wee little book" as Jefferson put it, has had a tremendous influence on the Western world. Locke, a child of the English Enlightenment has caused conservatives and other tyrants, socialists and communists to shudder at the right to throw off tyrannical government. A truly great read.

If you want to understand what governments stands for, do not miss a serious reading to Locke. Locke flies high, very high in this book which provides the amazed reader with common sense facts about the especifics of human nature. And proceeds to explain in an extraordinarily clear form why governments are set up in the first place: to protect, to promote our natural rights that not even ourselves can give away to anyone let alone forsake them to the government: life, freedom and property. A masterly explanation on how and why we transit from Locke's state of nature, both unstable peaceful and dangerous lawless, to a society with government and the reign of law.

Whether or not Hegel was right that history is inevitably moving in a positive direction, he was most assuredly right that History is moving a direction that can limelight past social contradictions. When we look at Locke we see Hegel's claim completely vindicated. His Second Treatise is both revolutionary for its time, and conservative for ours. Moreover, Locke, while challenging mainstream Political Theory of his day (e.g., Men are beasts in a state of war, and Kings have divine rights, and Monarchies are good forms of government), simultaneously leads along a path that would have us owning people, abusing animals, and ignoring the concerns of the commons. How does Locke do this? Knowing the answer to this question is paramount, as Locke more than anyone influenced the American founding fathers, and sons of liberty, in their propaganda and political ideals.

Locke begins his Second Treatise with some interesting claims. Man is born into a state of nature, where all he obeys are the laws of nature. These laws of nature are in fact reason, granted to us by a deity who owns us. Reason, without any deep argumentation, convinces us all that we have a right to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe we are born into a state of war; it's only when someone transgresses against the laws of nature, which we find ourselves in a state of war. Being too irrational to defend ourselves, or at least defend ourselves utilizing a proper punishment and retribution, we desire a common and neutral judge. That judge is the state.

In order to defend the notion of protecting property via the state, Locke has to demonstrate how we come to own property. At first the earth is teaming with sustenance, and provisions. As man begins to labor over the earth, so that which he labors over becomes his. After all man owns his laboring appendages, and therefore, he mixes his ownership with the earth's goods, and comes to own them too (but doesn't God own man, and thus his appendages...). Since we are in a state of nature though, where preservation of life is paramount, we cannot take more than we need, or as Locke calls it, let things spoil or go to waste. Then, without the slightest justification, Locke states that therefore the work of our servant belongs to us. How the hell does someone labor over a man for him to become our servant? This is never justified, but given Locke's private affairs, and personal life, it's no doubt he'd have to sneak this line in to his political treatise. Locke for instance sat on the board of many companies that employed children, and enslaved foreigners. He thought children should be put to work at the age of three. But I digress.... Man also somehow can labor over an animal and thus own it too. Odd. Locke is confident that the earth will reap us a greater harvest, the more we work it, therefore, despite the fact the commons, in the state of nature, provides us with plenty, we can have even more plenty by labor. To a degree this is true, but it's increasingly becoming clear that our industrial labors are having the opposite effect on the planet, destroying what once was plentiful.

Now that we have a super abundance, Locke needs to justify why we can step away from his old rule of the taking of no excess, and hoarding to the point of spoilage. For this Locke augments his shoddy labor theory of value. Man comes to agree that money, be it gold, or paper, which cannot spoil, than represent that which we trade it for. Now instead of hoarding my home with 100 apples, 90 of which will rot, I'll keep 100 apples worth of gold on reserve. Of course Locke never actually explained how money came to share an equivalent value with the goods it is exchanged for. Mere agreement does not allow for universal equivalent of value. For this, we must consult Marx. Moreover, it's completely unclear that people did unanimously come together and `consent' to using a common currency. Again, consult Marx.

Oddly this prospering and industrious society has all taken place prior to the erecting of a state. The Marxist truism that bourgeois thinkers read their own society back into history, and implore their own categories of thought - which derive from material circumstances - as timeless tools for analysis, is vindicated when one reads Locke. Man now requires a state to protect his property. No longer does man owe himself to the common lot, but uses the state to augment his own affairs, relying on the state to protect the commons, but the only protection the commons needs is preservation of property, and defense against transgressions. We went from a land of plenty, with our fellow man in mind, to find ourselves in a land of property, where the plenty is sectioned off, people are owned - without justification - and our only duty to our fellow man is to leave him alone. If he cannot make his way in society, it's clearly his own fault. Funny how we all have a right to property, but only extreme minorities actually has it.

Thus Locke is both a revolutionary and a conservative. An enlightener, and a charlatan. A man of liberty and a man who sanctions owning humans. Despite his contradictory nature, he earns a small round of applause for those in favor of democracy. Locke is convinced that legislation can only be consented to when it passed by a majority, and not by a king. A king is literally in the state of war at all times, a man who sets the law, but completely operates outside it.

In regards to the essay on liberation, it's a perfect example of what Zizek refers to as Liberalism's inability to tolerate what it deems extremism. That is, liberals pretend to be for an open society, of tolerance, and religious expression, until you encroach on what they deem to be intolerant, and radical. Locke thinks all religions ought to be tolerated, except Catholics and atheists. The Catholics are beholden to the pope and thus cannot be loyal to the society they live in. And atheists can lie. That's right, the reason you cannot trust atheists, is that they can lie. Stupid. One wonders how Locke didn't instantly realize everyone can lie!

Read Locke, and if you cannot generate a critique, you're long lost to liberal ideology. If you can generate a critique, socialism embraces you.

John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" provided much of the incentive and facts needed for the American founding fathers to proceed in their venture of declaring independence from Great Britain. Did anyone else find that the entirity of the first treatise was based more on the needs of the individual and liberty than upon government? On the other hand, it is this individual desire for liberty that, today, provides the foundation for governments of the democratic sort. Brilliant. It does not address so many of the issues that democracies have had to contend with in the past two centuries, but, it is masterful, nonetheless. A+.

The Illusion of Supreme Legislative Power

Classical Political Thoughts

The legislative power in a society that allows for money can not be reconciled with individual natural rights because the legislature is bound to compromise the property of minority for the interest of the majority. Thus, despite Locke's assertion that his legislature is supreme, it can not be, since according to Locke's own definition, the foundation of the legislature's supreme power only lies in the complete protection of the people's property by the legislature.

Locke asserts that the Legislative power is supreme in the commonwealth (Chapter 18). This legislative power, however, is only supreme because it protects the life and property of the people. He says,

"And thus the Community perpetually retains a Supream Power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any Body, even of their Legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the Liberties and Properties of the Subject. For no Man, or Society of Men, having a power to deliver up their Preservation, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another." (p367)

The key here is that "no Man" can give up the right to protect his property and liberty; this means the legislative power does not gain its supreme power by protecting some people's person and property, but everyone's person and property. Sadly, despite Locke's genuine efforts to establish a government that was not "so foolish, or so wicked", his supreme legislature will not protect everyone's person and property. This is not caused by the corruption of the members of the legislature or their promotion of secret laws; instead, Locke's system is intrinsically flawed because the legislature acts according to majority vote.

Locke believes that the interest of the majority vote is the interest of the whole, and the majority vote in a commonwealth must decide the actions of the commonwealth. Locke writes of the necessity for majority rule as follows,

"It is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one Community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should." (p332)

Locke makes no mistakes here-a government will never be able to function if every action it takes must obtain the consent of every citizen. Nevertheless, although for most of the time, the differences between majority vote and minority vote merely show differences in opinions about how best to achieve a common goal, it is unavoidable that sometimes the differences of opinion will represent fundamental split of interest. With this unavoidable fissure, the laws selected by the majority vote are bound to hurt the person and property of the minority.

America before the American Civil War is an example where a fundamental fissure in society appeared. In the United States of the late 19th century, there was a clear difference of interest between the slave owning plantation economy of the south and the free labor industrial economy of the north. The Yankees, through the legislature, was enforcing economic laws such as high tariff and low silver excavation that protected northern manufacturing industries but hurt the production and exports of southern farming produces. Since the legislature of the United States was controlled by the more populous northern states, the south felt that its interest was always trumped by the majority. This fissure made the legislature no longer a source of supreme power in the eyes of southerners, and it was the cause of the Civil War.

The American civil war is an extreme example, but lesser examples of differences in interest abound. In one case of the 1980s, the conservative British PM Margaret Thatcher recognized that it was not in the interest of the majority of the British people to keep on subsidizing coal workers with billions of tax money, and decided to let the market determine how the coalmines should be ran. Margaret Thatcher was justly representing the interest of the people who gave her and her party power to sit in the House of Commons. The coalminers, a minority interest group, however, were extremely upset because they would lose jobs if Thatcher succeeded since their high-cost mines could not compete in a market economy. The government and the mineworkers battled on the streets for a year before the issue was resolve.

Whether the PM or the mineworkers had more justice on their side is topic for another essay, but it is clear that fundamental differences of interests between different interest groups exist.

Reading Locke, nevertheless, one might come to the conclusion that the above kinds of conflicts of economic interest only arise from people's greed for obtaining what they do not need-the northern capitalists and the southern plantation owners were only fighting for ever more slaves and mills, and perhaps there should have never been any coalmines if only there was not so much economic development which only produce excess and corruption. One might say that in a true Lockeian society, there will never be such battles for money, and as evidence, one find Locke saying,

"God has given us all things richly, I Tim. Vi. 17. is the Voice of Reason confirmed by Inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may be his labour fix a Property in." (p290)

The above idea on the outset seems to put a tremendous limit on the property one can obtain, and this limit promotes a form of simple agricultural society where everyone has moderate property and happiness.

If Locke really does believe that all industrial and expansionary economics are bad and does limit his Commonwealth to the moderate agricultural form, then the legislature could be supreme because when everyone has similar land and make similar produces, there can not be fundamental differences in interest. Nevertheless, Locke is not against industrial and economic expansions since he is not against money, which is the bloodline of economic developments.

Despite the gross inequality that comes with money, Money is acceptable to Locke because it accumulates imperishable goods. Locke believes that although a person should not try to hoard a hundred bananas a day for his own consumption, he should be able to obtain and keep what will be of lasting preservative value. In fact, he sets no limits on such imperishable goods; and the accumulation of imperishable goods is exactly what money accomplishes. Locke writes,

"They having by a tacit and voluntary consent found out a way, how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for overplus, Gold and Silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one, these metals not spoileing or decaying in the hands of the possessor." (p302)

As this passage shows, Gold and Silver do not perish, and therefore, they do not represent wastes. Although they cause inequality, they are "fair" in that they are the "overplus" of

one's labour that do not take away the interest of others.

One with Gold and Silver might purchase a nice English country estate, some nice carriages, or even a Cotton machine. Locke, by accepting these imperishable goods procured with money strips away the supreme power that the legislature could have had in an equal agricultural state. This accumulation of imperishable goods is bound to create differing classes in societies with the capitalists having one interest in the law and the poor having another and also create further interest sub-groups. Since the legislature is bound to pass laws that have majority vote (even when the group represents the minority population), the property and liberty of the minority group will always be compromised.

One might argue at this point that although it is clear that the interest of the minority might be deprived, but when people united together to form civil society, they made the contract with each other that each will be governed by the choice of the majority (P331). They are right, however, this contract is conditional. To understand the conditionality, the rationality for coming into civil society must be clear. Locke writes,

"To avoid this State of War (wherein there is no appeal but to Heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no Authority to decide between the Contenders) is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into Society, and quitting the State of nature." (p282)

The above quote and Locke's ideas about majority rule together show that Locke is offering two choices for living: either one joins the society or he stays in the "State of War". If he chooses the latter, he keeps intact the whole of his property and rights, but must embrace the danger that there can be no "Authority" to protect his property and rights. If he joins the commonwealth, he will have to pay a "fee", which is the cost of the damage to his property majority action might do, however, this loss will be recuperated overtime from the long term security offered by the Commonwealth. Citizens, therefore, only gave up their irrevocable right to property in order to keep their property.

The balance of benefits changes, however, when one is only getting properties taken away by the society, but receives nothing in return. As the groups support different laws in the legislature through their representatives, the minority will not be paying a "fee" for long term security but will be simply be constantly suppressed by the majority. This dictatorship of the majority is no better for the minority than the state of nature when they still kept the right to punish others in their hands.

In any Commonwealth that uses money as the medium of exchange, there must arise differences of interests that make the legislature a place where majority interest will trump minority interest. Thus, individual liberty for some will be preserved, but for others, it will not be. The legislature will never be able to protect the interest of everyone, and therefore can not have supreme power if the source of the supreme power is truly, as Locke claims, the people.