Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Second Treatise of Government

3.72 of 5 stars 3.72 · rating details · 6,650 ratings · 111 reviews

The central principles of what today is broadly known as political liberalism were made current in large part by Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1690). The principles of individual liberty, the rule of law, government by consent of the people, and the right to private property are taken for granted as fundamental to the human condition now. Most liberal theorists wr...more

Paperback, 148 pages

Published June 1st 1980 by Hackett Publishing Company (Indianapolis, IN) (first published 1690)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Constitution of the United States of America by Founding Fathers

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the U... by Thomas Jefferson

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton

Best Books to Become an Informed Voter

67th out of 570 books — 749 voters

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Theories of Government

3rd out of 112 books — 31 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Aug 08, 2011 Erik Graff rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: citizens

Recommended to Erik by: David Schweickart

Shelves: philosophy

This book was assigned reading for the "Social and Political Philosophy" class at Loyola University Chicago. It's a rewarding, yet easy, read.

John Locke's Second Treatise has long been mentioned as a major factor in forming the mindsets of the authors of the Constitution of the USA. There is certainly, as Wittgenstein would put it, "a family resemblance", but a study of the library contents of the period indicates that actually it may not have been much read at the time. It certainly wasn't his...more This book was assigned reading for the "Social and Political Philosophy" class at Loyola University Chicago. It's a rewarding, yet easy, read.

John Locke's Second Treatise has long been mentioned as a major factor in forming the mindsets of the authors of the Constitution of the USA. There is certainly, as Wittgenstein would put it, "a family resemblance", but a study of the library contents of the period indicates that actually it may not have been much read at the time. It certainly wasn't his most popular book. In any case, when the framers spoke and wrote, their references were much more often to the idealized days of the Roman Republic than to the theories of Locke or any other roughly contemporary political philosopher. Still, the kind of thinking enunciated by Locke was apparently in the air and his arguments regarding governmental legitimacy are powerful--at least to those of us indoctrinated since childhood with such ideals as that governments require legitimization beyond brute force or tradition.

The basic idea is this: governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed--in other words, they are contractual arrangements. Any notion that this is historically descriptive is certainly dubious, but the idea is certainly relevant to the founding of this republic years after his death. It was also, during that period, apparently both realistic and practical, the existence of the American frontier allowing adults the possibility of opting out such contracts.

Of course, Locke has his blindspots. He does deal with the issue of children, endorsing the idea that young men upon attainment of their majority ought be able to become outlaws. Tho young boys remain coerced, they have the prospect of freedom. He does not, however, at least to my recollection, give thought to girls and women. Nor does he think of those adult members of the community who are, owing to physical or mental disability, unable to fend for themselves. Most egregiously, however, he neglects the native inhabitants of the American and of all other habitable frontiers of his and of our later revolutionary age.

Still, it is a powerful idea and an attractive one. So powerful and constituative is it of the secular American religion that the loss of the frontier, of any realistic way to opt out of the American system, out of any governmental system, constitutes a radical challenge to the very foundations of the claim that the United States of America is in any way specially sanctioned.

I should very much like to live in a society in which this, the matter of governmental legitimacy, was an issue of actual concern, rather than of pious mythologization. Any government worthy of our respect must needs include among its functions the maintenance of real means to escape its authority. Indeed, making allowance for race and gender blindness, our government, and that of our Britannic parent, used to act with some mind to just that when the mythic frontiers of America and of Australia seemed quite real. Oh, it was half-assed and self-serving, but frontiers were seen as social safety valves and these, and other, governments did make some efforts to make it possible for citizens to get away from noxious authority by such means as the Northwest Territories and Homestead Acts. Nowadays, however, while rugged individualism and frontier virtues are still invoked by the political priesthoods, the actual fact is quite the contrary. Our government grows ever more intrusive, ever more oppressive, ever more inescapable and ever more disrespected while it should, at least, be striving to engage with the other powers and principalities in order to create the conditions for all of them to obtain and maintain legitimacy. This can be done.

Science fiction writers has dealt with this issue for decades, solving the problem of legitimacy in various ways. On one extreme there is the vast body of literature about pioneers in space, usually just hi-tech versions of sixteenth through eighteenth century colonists, pioneers, adventurers, pirates and the like. These pictures are, of course, unrealistic, given the technologies involved and the capitalization that they would entail. On the other extreme, and more realistically, there have been some who have envisioned futures when vast areas of our planet have been depopulated in order to allow for outlawry. As I recall, Huxley makes a wilderness Australia the alternative to his dystopian brave new world and a private retreat the haven for psychedelic pilgrims in his Island. Neither work out, but they could. Here, in the Midwest, we have created a national park in the Indiana Dunes by exemplary intention.

Unless nature forces the issue by radical depopulation, such an effort will not yield immediate results. If the nations unitedly decided to create a frontier of, say, Australia (assuming it would be big enough and clement enough to be a real alternative to those not liking the existing social contracts available elsewhere and willing to bear the hardships of independent outlawry), it would have to occur over time given the interests of its current inhabitants. Otherwise, one might consider global efforts to reduce the human population and perhaps concentrate the remainder so as to allow ever-increasing frontier areas everywhere, frontiers offering freedoms ranging from weekend excursions to lifelong escape. Or, and this I just have a glimmer of, perhaps future developments in computer technology, the world-wide web and self-induced altered states of consciousness will allow our descendents other dimensions of freedom barely imaginable to us now, but real enough to them as to serve as alternatives to unwanted authority.

In any case, John Locke, way back in the transitional years of the 17-18th centuries, got me started worrying about this stuff. Quite an accomplishment!

(less)

like 4 likes · see review

May 17, 2010 Rashaan rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: academics-textbooks-pedagogy, non-fiction, philosophy

Job Title: Men of Industry
Organization: Locke’s Utopia (as outlined in Second Treatise of Government)
Location: The Commonwealth
Salary: Depending on experience and circumstance
FT (+ over)

Job Description:
Under general supervision of God, men of industry are responsible for making the land productive, working to ensure individual prosperity, which will secure civil harmony so man’s true destiny and society’s objecktives are met. Specific areas of responsibility include:

-Self-preservation; prot...more

like 3 likes · see review

Aug 20, 2012 Bruce rated it 4 of 5 stars

John Locke’s political thought was foundational for the Founding Fathers of this country as they justified their independence from Great Britain and set up the government of the United States. In this, his Second Treatise on Civil Government or Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay, Locke argues that legitimate political power cannot be based on heredity or brute force but must derive from something else. He further asserts that it is circumscribed to the regulating and preserving of propert...more John Locke’s political thought was foundational for the Founding Fathers of this country as they justified their independence from Great Britain and set up the government of the United States. In this, his Second Treatise on Civil Government or Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay, Locke argues that legitimate political power cannot be based on heredity or brute force but must derive from something else. He further asserts that it is circumscribed to the regulating and preserving of property and to the defense of the commonwealth. His discussion of the right to property is extensive and emphasizes, on the one hand, the limits of legitimate property as being (with special reference to land) what one can work and create on one’s own and what one can use without wasting, and, on the other hand, how money as a means of exchange need not have limits, since it essentially does not deprive someone else of anything. Is that true?

The essence of legitimate government is that everyone in such society is equally under the law, there being no one, such as an absolute monarch, who stands above the law. Each person in such as society must have available some redress, someone to whom to appeal if he feels that he (ie, his property) is being treated unjustly. There can be no arbitrary fiat lodged in the hands of any ruler. Government must be by the consent of the governed, and such consent is implied if a man is of age and owns property in the country of the government, this implying his consent to the actions and restrictions of said government. He may, of course, take himself elsewhere and out of the society in which he thus finds himself, doing so at any time and thereby exiting from the participation in that government and society. Men choose to unite in society to preserve their lives, liberty, and estates, by which Locke defines property, because the state of Nature, where man has maximal liberty, is precarious and uncertain.

The ends of government are restricted to those issues that induce men to leave the state of Nature and, by so doing, relinquish a portion of their liberty, ie the protection of their property and their defense against those outside the society to which they have surrendered themselves. The first and most fundamental duty of any commonwealth is the establishing of the legislative power. These are the bounds to legislative power: 1) They are to govern by established laws; 2) These laws ought to be designed for no other end by the good of the people; 3) They must not raise taxes without the consent of the governed; and 4) The legislature must not transfer the power of making laws to anyone else. The members of the legislature must be subject to the laws they pass.

Locke asserts that the legislative function must be separate from the executive/federative function (the executive having to do with the application of laws domestically, the federative having to do with foreign relations, both almost always lodged in the same hands).

The true remedy of force without authority is to oppose force to it.

The executive is given prerogative to act in the absence of law or even against the law if it is in the best interests of the people.

Locke discusses the rights of conquest in some detail. The rights of a conqueror extend only to the lives and property of those who have opposed him but not to the lives and property of families of those opponents nor to the lives and property of those who did not oppose him. Further, the inhabitants of a conquered land do not owe the conqueror any loyalty or obedience unless they freely chose to give it.

Tyranny is using the power one has for one’s own advantage, not for the advantage of those under one. Force may be used against force if no legal recourse is to be had. Thus, when the legislative abandons the good of the people and functions for its own benefit, or when the executive ceases to function for the good of the people or gives the society into the hands of another polity, the people may dissolve the government and reestablish it according to their will.

This is an interesting work, fundamental to an understanding of the assumptions and presuppositions that guided the minds and activities of those in the late 18th century in this country who responded to what they perceived as injustices imposed upon them and therefore decided to craft their own polity. It is hard for us today to appreciate how radical Locke’s views were, how threatening these positions were to those holding power in the mid to late 18th century.
(less)

like · see review

Dec 08, 2011 Justin Evans rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: history-etc, philosophy

Yikes- I'd thought that, since so many liberals (or what in America are called, bizarrely enough, conservatives) take this as a kind of ur-text, it'd be, you know, good. My bad. I should have realized that quality of argument is totally superfluous in political matters.

Whatever he meant to say, Locke ends up saying very little. He says the state of nature is peaceable and pleasant... and that we form political societies to escape from the state of nature. He writes an entire treatise to describ...more

like · see review

Mar 17, 2010 Bob Nichols rated it 4 of 5 stars

Locke's political theory begins with the state of nature where men have perfect freedom within the bounds of the law of nature to pursue what is necessary for their preservation. In the state of nature also is a state of equality "wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another." In this state of freedom and equality, the law of nature is that each ought to respect each other's ends so that the state of nature is a state of balance. The state of nature is no...more Locke's political theory begins with the state of nature where men have perfect freedom within the bounds of the law of nature to pursue what is necessary for their preservation. In the state of nature also is a state of equality "wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another." In this state of freedom and equality, the law of nature is that each ought to respect each other's ends so that the state of nature is a state of balance. The state of nature is not, Locke says, a state of license and men, through reason, can see that self-regulation (self-limitation) is essential for their own good. But this harmonious state of affairs does not exist in reality for some men seek more than their due, placing the other's property at risk. In this jeopardizing situation, men consent to the creation of a government to regulate social interactions by law so that the common good is achieved, and to the limitation of government so as not to perpetuate private interest at the expense of the whole.

Locke's theory rests on a biological foundation. We seek our preservation and well-being (both, generally, "property" in Locke) as any animal does. Good is what brings us pleasure. Bad is what brings us pain. This part of Locke is straight forward. In theory, humans should all be equal in power but this is Locke's error. Men in a "state of nature" are not equal. They vary in character, intelligence and ambition as well as physical strength. This results in inequality which is accentuated with the accumulation of material property and money. It is this inequality, not equality, that necessitates the formation of government by individual consent. Inequality explains why there is deviation from the law of nature where men ought to respect the ends of others and not seek more than their fair share (Note: Locke's statement that, were it not for corruption, the world would have no need for civil society. But this begs the question as to why there is corruption). Through reason, men abstract what ought to be from the state of nature and make it the founding principle for the commonwealth: the end of government is the protection of the common good, i.e., the freedom of individuals to preserve their body and material means in ways that respect the ends of the other, and holds aggressors (those who invade an other's right) in check.

Locke's political theory is built upon this theory of human nature and his assessment of both is about as good as it gets. C.B. McPherson, who writes an introduction to the Second Treatise, over interprets Locke's theory of property, focusing on property as wealth whereas Locke makes it clear that property is body and the body's welfare, not just land, business and money that, at least in some significant way, serve the body's welfare. And Locke never deviates from his fundamental principle that the end of government is the good of the whole, not private interest at the expense of the whole. Where Locke goes astray is that he anchors his law of nature in the Will of God. Locke's empiricism, perhaps, leads him to deny inherited, innate principles that are embedded in our very biology. Locke looks up to the heaven for his ultimate foundation, when that foundation likely rests on his, and our, biological being. (less)

like 1 like · see review

Aug 25, 2009 Mojtaba Khosravi rated it 4 of 5 stars

رساله ای درباره حکومت به عنوان یکی از پایه های اساسی دموکراسی و کاپیتالیسم توسط جان لاک به رشته تحریر درامد، هر چند برخی معتقدند که او برای توجیه تئوریک و منتقی انقلاب خود و دوستانش بر علیه چارلز دوم، دست به نگارش این متن زده و عده ای دیگر این رساله پاسخی به کتاب سر رابرت فیلمر که در ان از حق الهی سلطنت دفاع شده بود می دانند، اما در عمل این رساله به عنوان چارچوبی مدون و زیربنایی برای تاسیس دموکراسی درامد،خواندن این کتاب می تواند از این جهت جالب توجه باشد که مفاهیمی را که امروزه ما با انها دست به...more

like · see review

Sep 29, 2010 Martha rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: classic, historical, political

The gist of Locke's political philosophy is amazing, especially in the context of when it was written, but I was disappointed with his fuzziness in a few areas:

Property rights: What if property rights protection causes more harm than benefit to an impoverished local population? Locke's defence of property rights is based, after all, on his proposition that private ownership is preferable to letting resources go to waste. Unfortunately, it seems that what constitutes "going to waste" is subjectiv...more

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 23, 2010 Daniel Pecheur rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: those interested in ideas behind American political values or essential political philosophy

Shelves: philosophy-politics

John Locke is definitely my favorite political philosopher. I think his basis premise is right on the mark, and the arguments he derives from that to engineer his vision of a free society that established a new paradigm in how we properly build the groundwork of the social contract and the commonwealth are definitely well-reasoned and makes far more since for the standard of government and terms of society than other political philosophers. The value of his ideas is immeasurable and it's hard fo...more John Locke is definitely my favorite political philosopher. I think his basis premise is right on the mark, and the arguments he derives from that to engineer his vision of a free society that established a new paradigm in how we properly build the groundwork of the social contract and the commonwealth are definitely well-reasoned and makes far more since for the standard of government and terms of society than other political philosophers. The value of his ideas is immeasurable and it's hard for a person in the 21st century to really appreciate or understand that what Locke propounded was monumental and seminal on an unprecedented scale that broke far and away from the political status quo of his time, deviating with such fresh resonance from the oppressive dogma that enabled monarchs and wealthy elites to monopolize the reins of power for almost all of human history. Locke gave birth to and nurtured the liberating belief that chief among the ends of society is the virtue of individual liberty, at odds with both contemporary Thomas Hobbes' draconian cynicism of the necessity for the strongman "Leviathan" state to maintain order so that we don't degenerate into that savage "state of nature" which he equated with perpetual violence and chaos as well as with the later Romantic patriarch Rousseau's primrose affinity for idyllic nature where freedom reigns while in society we become institutional slaves unless we appoint some enlightened, benevolent despot/ body politic to tend to our tends at the guidance of some elusive communitarian rubric dubbed the "general will". Locke stands out above all in the ranks of key political philosophy as the real bona fide proponent of individual liberty who believe that no just society can prize anything else above the preservation and protection of our natural rights. We take these lofty ideals about democracy and freedom for granted, without realizing the ingenious, intellectual reasoning to support them as an article of political doctrine. Thank God for the empirical mind of Mr. Locke that founded the wonderful notion of "natural rights" that are intrinsic to all of us, simply by virtue of being homo sapiens with the capacity for reason and intellectual coherence. Locke argues that mankind is born with natural rights to "property"- which consists of life, liberty and estate. From these inherent rights stem the conditions and structure of the social contract, formulated with these inalienable rights as paramount under any system of government in which people would choose to abide. This pre-eminent treatise of Locke's revolutionary ideas that inspired the American founding fathers less than a century later succinctly and clearly expresses the basic tenets of classical liberalism. Locke championed long before it was taken as an a priori axiom the idea that governments are created with the consent of those being governed and is charged with upholding the fundamental rights of its citizens. Locke argues robustly and with great compelling wisdom how we, the governed, have a right to rebel and take force against any sovereign that violates the tenets of the binding social contract. Sounds like a radical idea today, doesn't it? Locke is still urgently relevant in this day and age when the values of individual freedom and the idea of natural rights are under withering assault from multiple directions. For those who believe individual liberty must be the cornerstone of any free society, there is much appetizing intellectual fuel contained within this treatise. (less)

like · see review

Jun 05, 2009 Karolina rated it 4 of 5 stars

Finally, an old political philosophy book that is not overly difficult and/or doesn't make you want to throw it across the room. When I had to read this for my Political Theory class, I was convinced that it could not have been written earlier than the 19th century due to its very modern ideas. Apparently, it was published in 1690.

Among Locke's innovations are natural rights such as that to revolution and the idea of government as a sort of social contract between ruler(s) and ruled - ideas tha...more

like · see review

Feb 10, 2011 Qursheedali rated it 5 of 5 stars

This novel is the complex books of books. John Locke focuses on the people's property and the human itself being. The first pages sounds very confusing, but if you read closely, John Locke speaks about the Declaration of Independence. Also, on page 4, second chapter, second paragraph, one of the lines relates to Socrates and how humans or kings see do what he or they see fit. So far, I have just started John Locke, the novel looks interesting, but to me it is too much complex. It's kind of hard...more

like · see review

Jul 21, 2010 Jeremy added it

Shelves: politics

It feels sort of like Hobbes for optimists, except he places a much higher emphasis on personal vs. collective property rights, which comes across as the precursor to most of the capitalist-oriented d-bag philopshy that's sprouted up in the past century. The notion that not being able to personally own something makes it useless and trifiling to us gets its foundation here. I could see Karl Marx frothing at the mouth and writing some bitter diatribe after reading something like this.
I was also...more

like 3 likes · see review

May 07, 2013 Ronny rated it 4 of 5 stars

"...for it is with common-wealths as with particular persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies."

are you interested in politics or the state of this thing we call America? then i strongly recommend you read this. incredible how much it inspired the creation of our own government over three hundred years ago.

here's another choice quote:

"And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of the...more

like · see review

Sep 08, 2009 Briana rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: foundations-of-american-thought, torrey-johnson-soph-fall

Getting a head start on American Lit...

But don't kick me out of Procrastinators Anonymous just yet.

*EDIT*

Gosh, Locke's punctuation is KILLING me!! He likes; to punctuate his, sentences like this and it's just so, annoying and confusing. Did they even HAVE rules for punctuation back then?!!!

Not to mention how Locke likes to make really long sentences that ought to be cut into pieces, but instead he likes to connect them into tremendously huge paragraphs, because obviously Locke does not believe...more

like · see review

Sep 05, 2009 Greg Meyer rated it 3 of 5 stars

The problem with Locke and all of the other social theorists of his time is that they are too ingrained with the ideology that rights are based in god. Without god, in their view, rights cannot exist. Rights, in the postmodern world, are not grounded in anything, which leads to the existentialist/nihilistic worldview. Nietzsche says that we need to just blindingly believe in something to combat this. I say we ground rights in the uniqueness of the human condition, or in the ideology of interconn...more

like · see review

Jan 16, 2012 Brian Fergus rated it 4 of 5 stars

A challenging, ahead of its time political treatise that convincingly shows that limited government where people not only have the right to rebel but the right to create the government under which they live through representation. Locke emphasizes natural born personal liberty and the right to ones property. He asserts beautifully that government exists for the purpose of protecting people's property.

People shouldn't be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people. Go...more

like · see review

Sep 24, 2011 Troy added it

English is a different language now, which makes Second Treatise a difficult read. But Locke is a necessary read for anyone interested in philosophy and theory of government.

In Second Treatise, Locke talks about the State of Nature as an alternative to humans living together in civilized groups. Prior to reading this and having my somewhat stationary perspective on government broadened and freed, I feel I have a much more solid foundation from which to judge modern policy decisions and the direc...more

like · see review

Dec 18, 2008 Christine rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

I'm really not sure how to rate this book. It's not as if this were a thrilling or enjoyable read. It's an old bit of philosophy, the foundation of our constitution, and a wonderful study in the rights of government. It's not long but it is written in the language of its day, so it's heavy. Once I got used to the language, I had a much easier time. I don't recommend this book to everyone, but if you've got an interest in philosophy or government, this is one of those foundation pieces you really...more

like · see review

Jan 24, 2012 Donovan Richards rated it 4 of 5 stars

“Mine!”

It begins early with a child yelling, “Mine!” We have all heard him/her bursting into tears and the quick crawl/run/waddle to a parent claiming the injustice of lost property. From an early age, we feel the seemingly self-evident truth of private property. We were given an object; we collected items; we connected those items in ways that made a new and much better object.

In all of these scenarios, we learned the idea of “mine.” In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the author pre...more

like · see review

Sep 03, 2012 Chris Byron rated it 3 of 5 stars

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 Mo...more 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.(less)

like · see review

Oct 14, 2007 Russell rated it 4 of 5 stars

Whew, that was a long read.

Locke packs so much into there I couldn't just speed read and really get his arguments. I had a Cambridge Classic edition and that had a large preface and it was chock full of footnotes. There are copies out there on the net: a Google search lists a bunch of texts right off the bat.

But if you want to understand the founding documents of the Unites States of America (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) you need to read and spend time with Locke.

A...more

like · see review

Sep 08, 2007 Kim rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: patriots, people that don't mind shitty writing

While the philosophy contained within this book was crucial to the formation of the United States' political system, Locke is one of the worst philosophical writers I have ever encountered.
I had to create a reading guide for this book for a class, and it was a chore. I enjoy philosophical writing. I read this kind of stuff for fun, but Locke's lack of organization/rambling ended up making me more sympathetic to the ideals of Hobbes (whom he was, in a way, responding to).
The introduction to this...more

like · see review

Mar 19, 2009 Brittany Holt rated it 5 of 5 stars

A must read for any American. Locke, an Englishman writing almost 200 years before the Declaration of Independence, lays the foundation for both the ideology and the system of government we still live with today. It is important to keep in mind the novelty of Locke's ideas even as you read these statements that seem to you like common sense. It is Locke's work in his 2nd Treatise and the founding fathers he subsequently inspired that make those notions seem so self explanitory.

like · see review

Jul 24, 2008 dead letter office rated it 3 of 5 stars

i find these old political theory tracts pretty interesting, but that may just mean i'm boring. my memory of this one (which i read a long while back) is that locke describes the rise of civil society from an anarchic natural state of man. government is introduced by the consent of the governed for the mutual protection of their lives and property, and the logical conclusion (stated explicitly, i believe) is that the governed, having brought the government into the world, have the right to take...more

like · see review

Nov 24, 2011 MOL rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: law-school

Šis Loko kūrinys, toli gražu, nėra pats geriausias, mano skaitytas kūrinys, politikos tematika. Nors knyga skaitėsi lengvai ir paprastai, man jinai visiškai nepatiko. Lokas net nesiteikė bent kiek giliau argumentuoti savo minčių, viskas, ką jis išdėstė - kelias objektyvias, absoliučias tiesas, o visą tai, ko pagrįsti nepajėgė - paliko Dievo autoritetui. Vienintelis vertingas dalykas, šiame kūrinyje - valdžių padalijimas, visa kitą - bullsh*t.

like · see review

Jul 11, 2010 Don rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

I had no idea this book would be so readable! I never was forced to read it in college, but did so for the Presidential Academy of History and Civics (on the flight to Philadelphia)... and it's much more interesting and entertaining than I had anticipated. OK, so the language is a bit dated, but there are so many good points and explanations and logical thoughts of (yes) enlightenment, it becomes clear very quickly why our man TJ and his buddies were so enamored of John Locke and this book.

like · see review

Jan 31, 2012 Benson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: school

At the start of this treatise, Locke presents a question: should man be allowed to overthrow his government? To answer this question, Locke guides the reader through the development of government. From his introduction of the “state of nature” to his analysis of civil society, Locke manages to enthrall the reader in what is typically a very dry subject.

like · see review

Feb 15, 2011 Fritz rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book helped me understand the Founders better. I can imagine them reading it, and feeling as though it were written just for them, in their time. Locke had some truly forward-thinking ideas about liberty, property, and the rights of man. It seems to me that his theory of government is primarily driven by his understanding of human liberty. The text itself was not always "fun" to read, but the message is worthwhile and I'm glad I read it.

like · see review

Aug 04, 2010 Keith added it Recommends it for: everyone

This book contains the principles that the United States of America was founded on. The Declaration of Independence uses terms and phrases found in this book. It describes the relationship of people to their governments. The last chapter on Dissolution of Governments presents a sobering description of our present political crisis, even though it was written over 300 years ago!

like · see review

Jul 17, 2012 Geoff rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the thought that influenced the people who have forged the world's liberal democracies. Not least in America. The book is short yet very profound and is well worth reading for anyone interested in political philosophy. Just don't travel with it to an autocratic state!

like · see review

Dec 07, 2011 Kyle rated it 4 of 5 stars

A (The?) book for English liberalism. Kirk hates it for its premise: a state of nature, rather than natural law. But in spite of this premise, he avoids the pitfalls of Rousseau and ends up not too far away from Christian (protestant) principles. Read it for its own sake, but also for the influence it had, and still has, on America.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (49)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

289 users

Politics

117 users

Non Fiction

82 users

Classics

54 users

Politics > Political Science

29 users

History

26 users

Academic > School

18 users

Academic > College

15 users

Academic

12 users

Politics > Government

9 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About John Locke

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

John Locke was an English philosopher. Locke is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenmen...more

More about John Locke...

Books by John Locke

A Letter Concerning Toleration: Humbly Submitted

The Second Treatise of Government & A Letter Concerning Toleration

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Il secondo tratta...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Second Treatise of Gov...

“Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” — 22 people liked it

“New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” — 10 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Second Treatise of Government
avg rating	preview: Second Treatise of Government Goodreads rating: 3.72 (6650 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448836.Second_Treatise_of_Government?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1359621941l/448836.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448836.Second_Treatise_of_Government?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Second Treatise of Government by John Locke[/url]

Second Treatise of Government

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website