What do you think?
Rate this book
Segundo Tratado sobre el Gobierno Civil: Un ensayo acerca del verdadero origen y fin del Gobierno Civil
La teoría política de John Locke (1632-1704) ha influido notablemente en la formación de la ideología liberal moderna. Mientras que el "Primer Tratado" es una larga y elaborada refutación de la teoría del derecho divino de los reyes tal y como fue concebida por sir Robert Filmer en Patriarca -también en esta colección-, el "Segundo Tratado sobre el Gobierno Civil" -"Un ensayo acerca del verdadero origen, alcance y fin del Gobierno Civil"- aborda temas tan importantes como el origen de la legitimidad de los gobiernos, la propiedad o la sociedad civil, aunque por encima de todo fue un trabajo destinado a reafirmar el derecho de resistencia a una autoridad injusta y, en última instancia, el derecho a hacer una revolución. La presente edición ha utilizado como referencia la edición póstuma de 1764.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1689
146 people are currently reading
1225 people want to read
About the author
John Locke
1,964 books1,467 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He 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 Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He 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 Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
Read
January 31, 2021While this volume is missing the First Treatise (which attacks theories of absolute monarchy rooted in Adam as the first in his line) and is a bit skimpy on notes, the second treatise is essential reading for anyone interested in thinking about the inter-grafted nature of the trees of "liberty" and "property" in the 18C, and how their legacy is still with us today (viz. libertarian insistence that the former rights are rooted in the latter).
The First Treatise, and much better notes, can be found in the (far, far pricier) Cambridge edition (Two Treatises of Government), which lacks this volume's (first) Letter on Toleration, which from the distance of 300 years on reads like a no-brainer: people who profess to different faiths (or who have different colour of hair!) should not have their civil liberties denied them—not even Catholics! He wasn't so sure about atheists, though, and (surprise, surprise) herein I found no particular mention of slaves....
Those self-styled "conservatives*", however, who wish to deny that America is a secular nation, will find no succor here, however much they are attempting to rehabilitate this patron saint of 1776 [https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/john-l...].
Where do human rights "come from", then? Or, what justifies them? If not the Author of all Creation, then property rights (with Robert Nozick's attempt to secularize Locke in Anarchy, State, and Utopia), or some etheric, eternal "law of nature"? Dunno. But am easing on down the road to the flying island of Laputa next, to read me some Leibniz and thereby obtain some sorely-needed deets on the best of all possible worlds....
*As Disraeli's Coningsby exclaims (in Coningsby, or The New Generation) "Conservatism, sure, whatevs, I'm down with that—but what shall we conserve?"
The First Treatise, and much better notes, can be found in the (far, far pricier) Cambridge edition (Two Treatises of Government), which lacks this volume's (first) Letter on Toleration, which from the distance of 300 years on reads like a no-brainer: people who profess to different faiths (or who have different colour of hair!) should not have their civil liberties denied them—not even Catholics! He wasn't so sure about atheists, though, and (surprise, surprise) herein I found no particular mention of slaves....
Those self-styled "conservatives*", however, who wish to deny that America is a secular nation, will find no succor here, however much they are attempting to rehabilitate this patron saint of 1776 [https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/john-l...].
Where do human rights "come from", then? Or, what justifies them? If not the Author of all Creation, then property rights (with Robert Nozick's attempt to secularize Locke in Anarchy, State, and Utopia), or some etheric, eternal "law of nature"? Dunno. But am easing on down the road to the flying island of Laputa next, to read me some Leibniz and thereby obtain some sorely-needed deets on the best of all possible worlds....
*As Disraeli's Coningsby exclaims (in Coningsby, or The New Generation) "Conservatism, sure, whatevs, I'm down with that—but what shall we conserve?"
February 14, 2009
This was a fascinating read. I came to understand Natural Law much better, and it caused me to re-think my parenting and my current level of involvement with local government.
I was intrigued to read several phrases here that ended up in our Declaration of Independence. So fun to read the works the Founders read as they were deciding how to form our Republic!
I was intrigued to read several phrases here that ended up in our Declaration of Independence. So fun to read the works the Founders read as they were deciding how to form our Republic!
October 6, 2019
This book is a collection of the two most important parts of John Locke's political philosophy: the Second Treatise of Government and a Letter concerning Toleration (both published in 1689, in The Netherlands).
In Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues from the perspective of a social contract, like Hobbes and Spinoza before him (and Rousseau and Montesquieu after him). In the state of nature, mankind is in a perpetual state of war: everyone looks pursues his or her own needs and the fruits of labour can be stolen by anyone at any moment. It is clear that this doesn't create an incentive to accomplish something, apart from the fact that feeling insecure 24/7 isn't mentally healthy. Therefore, there comes a time when humans collectively agree to give up the rights to harm others and steal possessions from eachother, and transfer these rights to an umpire - the state.
The state, in Locke's view, is a minimalist one: it has to protect the life and liberties of its citizens, both at home and from foreign powers, as well as to protect the property rights of individual citizens. Therefore, there's need for laws and the power to execute and - if need be - to coercively enforce these same laws. Locke sees these two components as functions of the sovereign and he doesn't seperate the powers per se (cf. Montesquieu's division of power). (He does make a distintion between executive, legislative and federative power, but this is conceptual/philosophical, not political).
So far, this is exactly Hobbes's view on sovereignty. But Locke takes another road when he gets to the topic of the degree of power. Hobbes promotes absolutism (i.e. dictatorship) as a garantuee for peace; Locke doesn't view absolute power as legitimate power. Situations change and power corrups, therefore there can be situations in which rulers turn into despots and government turns into tiranny. In situations like these, it is the sovereign power who breaks the social contracts and thereby gives the people back their right of self preservation. It is then legitimate for the people to start a revolution, with only this caveat: it is not the institution of the sovereign that is illegimate, but the person or group of persons that form this sovereign. Revolutions are therefore personal, not political.
It is important to understand that Locke sees the civil society and the state as two different aspects. Citizens form countless associations and compacts, of which the state is only one (be it the highest). In a sense, Locke makes a plea for constitutional democracy, that can be considered as 'the rules of the game' and leaving citizens free to play - in groups or alone - within these boundaries. It is not strange therefore, that the founding fathers of the United States drew inspiration from Locke when writing their Declaration of Independence.
A very important part of Locke's political philosophy regards the rights of property. People have the right to protect their earned property; this individual right is lost in the social contract and thereafter it is the state that should protect individual property in order to keep the peace. This leads inevitably - especially in post-agrarian economies - to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of select individuals. This is a justified critique on Locke's thoughts, since he was active in the Plantation business (therefore slavery). Locke even justifies slavery, under certain conditions (as a post-war consequence and as a - albeit circumscribed - economic necessity).
A second point of critique is that it seems (to me at least) that Locke follows the Greek tradition in democracy, in that he has especially wealthy men in his thoughts when speaking about freedom and property. These two points (slavery and particular rights) are serious moral flaws in his political philosophy. But then again, this was written in 1689; we have to be careful not to moralize historical documents, but when applying these ideas to our own time and place, we should be careful.
The Letter of Toleration is much simpler (at least in its contents): for Locke, there's no place for religious intolerance - or for intolerance as such - in society. The reasons for this are numerous. For one thing, it is impossible to force or threaten people into believing certain ideas. Thought police is impossible, according to Locke (if he's really right in this, is yet to be seen). Therfore, it's unreasonable to try to coerce people into believing your religious creed. Next, it is not only practically impossible, but it is also against Locke's own political philosophy: the church is one of those civil associations that citizens may form, which in the end fall under jurisdiction and power of the state. According to Locke, there's no place for religious authority in a state-run society.
A third reason is philosophical; there are many, mutually exclusive, religious creeds. They cannot all be right, therefore most of them are illusions. There are no valid criteria to determine religious truths, so we cannot be sure that we are right and all of the others are wrong. Therefore, we have to accept that different people believe different things. Locke also mentions a practical benefit of religious tolerance: economic prosperity.
What can we learn from Locke? As mentioned, Locked turned a blind eye to slavery and economic oppression. He also didn't see universal suffrage as important as we do. But apart from these flaws (which have to be seen in the historical context of 17th century England), there is a strong universalism in Locke's philosophy. He was (to my knowledge) the first philosopher who promoted the right of the people to start revolutions against tiranny and despotism. Besides this, he saw property as a way for society to prosper and reach above the level of mere subsistene (granted, a liberal economy has its own flaws, but still). He was also the first thinker to strive openly for religious tolerance - in a time when people had to publish like-minded books posthumously in order to avoid persecution. Constitutions where freedoms of individuals were garantueed; religious tolerance; these are important lessons for us.
To end this review: it is worth noting that Locke makes various philosophical and conceptual distinctions, which in practice would be quite a different topic. For example, he seems to build his system on a universal human being in the state of nature, without considering practical differences between gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Political philosophy is idealistic, in the sense that it doesn't deal with the nasty, everyday problems of civil life. It is important to remember this, because we seem to live in an age where masses of people are gradually coerced in a state of universal equality. But as Tocqueville would later on exclaim: freedom and equality are opposite ends - full equality means zero freedom. We should learn to accept differences between human beings, at least in places where they are not relevant.
---------------------
Second Treatise
- Principle of Freedom
- Principle of Property (derivative)
- Natural state is cooperative, yet not safe.
- Social contract between people.
- Appointing legislative power who draws up the rights and duties of citizens
- Appointing executive power who, besides being part of legislative, enforces law and protects conditions of safety, liberty, and prosperity
- Federative power (foreign policy and war making) rests with executive power
- All people in society, whether civil servant, administrator or citizen (in all the roles - husband, parent, worker, etc.) are entrusted by all others. All roles are trusts!
- Foreign conquest dissolves society; usurpation and tyranny transform Soevereign into a citizen (state of war)
Locke draws the line at personal liberty, including property. This was revolutionary at the time - up to that time most societies viewed people not as individuals but as parts of a collective. Although Locke isn't able to shake off his own biases (e.g. his elitist stance on access to legislative power based on property rights and his acceptance of slavery as natural law following a just war - and his failure to denounce other forms of slavery), yet within his historical he was a very moderate and tolerant man. Some of his hostilities, for example towards Catholics, are very reasonable, given the popery of earlier Kings and the recent persecution of Anglicans and Nonconformists.
His right to life, liberty and property was a ground-breaking idea which a child of the times and a huge influence on the American Constitution and modern day Human Rights.
Letter on Toleration: a plea to end the intolerance towards other religious creeds. He has a sharp eye, for example noticing the repression being the cause of secrets churches, not the secrecy of churches as hostility. Also, his hypothetical example of a group of Christian colonists settling in America, working together with Indians for common survival, until they are numerous enough to start up the religious enforcement of morals and doctrines. Very realistic and honest, given the times.
Locke basically fights against enforced religion, in any form whatsoever. Religion is always subordinate to the worldly power of the State and thus is at best a free association of people. Any form of violence or repression is illegal and illegitimate and should be supressed by the State. Also, a cooperation between church and State is illigetimate and not to be preferred - this feeds into the worldly ambitions of both, at the cost of the people.
Both in rituals are articles of faith does the State determine the boundaries of churches. Within these boundaries anything is permitted as long as churches respect the rights of every citizen. Every citizen is responsible for his own salvation - neither the Ruler/Government nor the Church - and hence should follow his own conscience. In the case your conscience clashes with the law/State, suffer the punishments and stick to your belief.
Tolerance for everyone except catholics, atheists and antinominians. Exclusion based on principles of rights: catholics obey a foreign, hostile power which undermines the stability of the social contract; atheists lack a moral foundation (God) and hence cannot partake in contracts, duties and rights - they also sow the seeds of unbelief and scepticism; antinominians claim they have their own just laws and undermine the State's authority and hence the social contract.
For his time, especially concerning the English Civil War and the Continental Wars of Religion, and the general climate of strife, censure and religious fragmentation, Locke comes across as a very tolerant and moderate man. His own Puritanism shines through, especially the emphasis on your own conscious and your own freedom, liberty and hence responsibility. There was certainly room for improvement, yet his plea for peace, liberty and prosperity has set off a train of ideas which culminated in the American Constitution of 1776 - in which the Founding Fathers drew heavily on Locke's philosophy of right, his moral philosophy and his plea for religious tolerance.
Historically important works, fairly readable for modern day readers, also stand alone (one doesn't need to read his dense and huge Essay concerning Human Understanding). I would wish we Europeans offer our children these historical works in school. Too many young people in the West don't have any idea where our freedoms and rights came from, what conditions are necessary to protect these, and how important it is to actively fight against threats against liberty, safety and prosperity.
In my own experience, most intellectual, left-leaning people are highly authoritarian and even fascistic/totalitarian in their views, while most of the masses don't regard politics, let alone themes like justice, freedom, etc. as important to their lives. This is a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of hostile ideologies. And I am not talking Trump or Brexit here - all people put things who climate change, globalism, personal safety or open borders above the welfare of individuals are proto-fascists in my view. They stand ready to throw the individual under the bus if this serves the collective. These times need a huge dose of John Locke's liberalism.
In Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues from the perspective of a social contract, like Hobbes and Spinoza before him (and Rousseau and Montesquieu after him). In the state of nature, mankind is in a perpetual state of war: everyone looks pursues his or her own needs and the fruits of labour can be stolen by anyone at any moment. It is clear that this doesn't create an incentive to accomplish something, apart from the fact that feeling insecure 24/7 isn't mentally healthy. Therefore, there comes a time when humans collectively agree to give up the rights to harm others and steal possessions from eachother, and transfer these rights to an umpire - the state.
The state, in Locke's view, is a minimalist one: it has to protect the life and liberties of its citizens, both at home and from foreign powers, as well as to protect the property rights of individual citizens. Therefore, there's need for laws and the power to execute and - if need be - to coercively enforce these same laws. Locke sees these two components as functions of the sovereign and he doesn't seperate the powers per se (cf. Montesquieu's division of power). (He does make a distintion between executive, legislative and federative power, but this is conceptual/philosophical, not political).
So far, this is exactly Hobbes's view on sovereignty. But Locke takes another road when he gets to the topic of the degree of power. Hobbes promotes absolutism (i.e. dictatorship) as a garantuee for peace; Locke doesn't view absolute power as legitimate power. Situations change and power corrups, therefore there can be situations in which rulers turn into despots and government turns into tiranny. In situations like these, it is the sovereign power who breaks the social contracts and thereby gives the people back their right of self preservation. It is then legitimate for the people to start a revolution, with only this caveat: it is not the institution of the sovereign that is illegimate, but the person or group of persons that form this sovereign. Revolutions are therefore personal, not political.
It is important to understand that Locke sees the civil society and the state as two different aspects. Citizens form countless associations and compacts, of which the state is only one (be it the highest). In a sense, Locke makes a plea for constitutional democracy, that can be considered as 'the rules of the game' and leaving citizens free to play - in groups or alone - within these boundaries. It is not strange therefore, that the founding fathers of the United States drew inspiration from Locke when writing their Declaration of Independence.
A very important part of Locke's political philosophy regards the rights of property. People have the right to protect their earned property; this individual right is lost in the social contract and thereafter it is the state that should protect individual property in order to keep the peace. This leads inevitably - especially in post-agrarian economies - to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of select individuals. This is a justified critique on Locke's thoughts, since he was active in the Plantation business (therefore slavery). Locke even justifies slavery, under certain conditions (as a post-war consequence and as a - albeit circumscribed - economic necessity).
A second point of critique is that it seems (to me at least) that Locke follows the Greek tradition in democracy, in that he has especially wealthy men in his thoughts when speaking about freedom and property. These two points (slavery and particular rights) are serious moral flaws in his political philosophy. But then again, this was written in 1689; we have to be careful not to moralize historical documents, but when applying these ideas to our own time and place, we should be careful.
The Letter of Toleration is much simpler (at least in its contents): for Locke, there's no place for religious intolerance - or for intolerance as such - in society. The reasons for this are numerous. For one thing, it is impossible to force or threaten people into believing certain ideas. Thought police is impossible, according to Locke (if he's really right in this, is yet to be seen). Therfore, it's unreasonable to try to coerce people into believing your religious creed. Next, it is not only practically impossible, but it is also against Locke's own political philosophy: the church is one of those civil associations that citizens may form, which in the end fall under jurisdiction and power of the state. According to Locke, there's no place for religious authority in a state-run society.
A third reason is philosophical; there are many, mutually exclusive, religious creeds. They cannot all be right, therefore most of them are illusions. There are no valid criteria to determine religious truths, so we cannot be sure that we are right and all of the others are wrong. Therefore, we have to accept that different people believe different things. Locke also mentions a practical benefit of religious tolerance: economic prosperity.
What can we learn from Locke? As mentioned, Locked turned a blind eye to slavery and economic oppression. He also didn't see universal suffrage as important as we do. But apart from these flaws (which have to be seen in the historical context of 17th century England), there is a strong universalism in Locke's philosophy. He was (to my knowledge) the first philosopher who promoted the right of the people to start revolutions against tiranny and despotism. Besides this, he saw property as a way for society to prosper and reach above the level of mere subsistene (granted, a liberal economy has its own flaws, but still). He was also the first thinker to strive openly for religious tolerance - in a time when people had to publish like-minded books posthumously in order to avoid persecution. Constitutions where freedoms of individuals were garantueed; religious tolerance; these are important lessons for us.
To end this review: it is worth noting that Locke makes various philosophical and conceptual distinctions, which in practice would be quite a different topic. For example, he seems to build his system on a universal human being in the state of nature, without considering practical differences between gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Political philosophy is idealistic, in the sense that it doesn't deal with the nasty, everyday problems of civil life. It is important to remember this, because we seem to live in an age where masses of people are gradually coerced in a state of universal equality. But as Tocqueville would later on exclaim: freedom and equality are opposite ends - full equality means zero freedom. We should learn to accept differences between human beings, at least in places where they are not relevant.
---------------------
Second Treatise
- Principle of Freedom
- Principle of Property (derivative)
- Natural state is cooperative, yet not safe.
- Social contract between people.
- Appointing legislative power who draws up the rights and duties of citizens
- Appointing executive power who, besides being part of legislative, enforces law and protects conditions of safety, liberty, and prosperity
- Federative power (foreign policy and war making) rests with executive power
- All people in society, whether civil servant, administrator or citizen (in all the roles - husband, parent, worker, etc.) are entrusted by all others. All roles are trusts!
- Foreign conquest dissolves society; usurpation and tyranny transform Soevereign into a citizen (state of war)
Locke draws the line at personal liberty, including property. This was revolutionary at the time - up to that time most societies viewed people not as individuals but as parts of a collective. Although Locke isn't able to shake off his own biases (e.g. his elitist stance on access to legislative power based on property rights and his acceptance of slavery as natural law following a just war - and his failure to denounce other forms of slavery), yet within his historical he was a very moderate and tolerant man. Some of his hostilities, for example towards Catholics, are very reasonable, given the popery of earlier Kings and the recent persecution of Anglicans and Nonconformists.
His right to life, liberty and property was a ground-breaking idea which a child of the times and a huge influence on the American Constitution and modern day Human Rights.
Letter on Toleration: a plea to end the intolerance towards other religious creeds. He has a sharp eye, for example noticing the repression being the cause of secrets churches, not the secrecy of churches as hostility. Also, his hypothetical example of a group of Christian colonists settling in America, working together with Indians for common survival, until they are numerous enough to start up the religious enforcement of morals and doctrines. Very realistic and honest, given the times.
Locke basically fights against enforced religion, in any form whatsoever. Religion is always subordinate to the worldly power of the State and thus is at best a free association of people. Any form of violence or repression is illegal and illegitimate and should be supressed by the State. Also, a cooperation between church and State is illigetimate and not to be preferred - this feeds into the worldly ambitions of both, at the cost of the people.
Both in rituals are articles of faith does the State determine the boundaries of churches. Within these boundaries anything is permitted as long as churches respect the rights of every citizen. Every citizen is responsible for his own salvation - neither the Ruler/Government nor the Church - and hence should follow his own conscience. In the case your conscience clashes with the law/State, suffer the punishments and stick to your belief.
Tolerance for everyone except catholics, atheists and antinominians. Exclusion based on principles of rights: catholics obey a foreign, hostile power which undermines the stability of the social contract; atheists lack a moral foundation (God) and hence cannot partake in contracts, duties and rights - they also sow the seeds of unbelief and scepticism; antinominians claim they have their own just laws and undermine the State's authority and hence the social contract.
For his time, especially concerning the English Civil War and the Continental Wars of Religion, and the general climate of strife, censure and religious fragmentation, Locke comes across as a very tolerant and moderate man. His own Puritanism shines through, especially the emphasis on your own conscious and your own freedom, liberty and hence responsibility. There was certainly room for improvement, yet his plea for peace, liberty and prosperity has set off a train of ideas which culminated in the American Constitution of 1776 - in which the Founding Fathers drew heavily on Locke's philosophy of right, his moral philosophy and his plea for religious tolerance.
Historically important works, fairly readable for modern day readers, also stand alone (one doesn't need to read his dense and huge Essay concerning Human Understanding). I would wish we Europeans offer our children these historical works in school. Too many young people in the West don't have any idea where our freedoms and rights came from, what conditions are necessary to protect these, and how important it is to actively fight against threats against liberty, safety and prosperity.
In my own experience, most intellectual, left-leaning people are highly authoritarian and even fascistic/totalitarian in their views, while most of the masses don't regard politics, let alone themes like justice, freedom, etc. as important to their lives. This is a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of hostile ideologies. And I am not talking Trump or Brexit here - all people put things who climate change, globalism, personal safety or open borders above the welfare of individuals are proto-fascists in my view. They stand ready to throw the individual under the bus if this serves the collective. These times need a huge dose of John Locke's liberalism.
April 10, 2022
Reading this coming off of Debt is sorta a fool’s errand. Locke’s presuppositions about the origins of society (“Well, people had property that they worked and then they were threatened by invaders so they joined/formed a society”) are pretty laughable. Nevertheless, his Bible-based philosophizing has had staying power: political parties are still organized around different conceptions of private property. A terrible, useful little window into the depths of our collective sickness.
May 18, 2013
A masterpiece that refined ideas of the early political philosophers (Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau) into what became American government. I can understand why the Federalist authors relied on Locke and see directly his influence in those works. All of the key elements are there: libertarianism (trade-off of commonwealth to protect property against the initiation of force), balance of powers, ultimate recourse of the people, state of nature, benefits of commonwealth, justice. He builds with the elements of power -- slavery is not a right but a sustained state of war, paternal power is different than power of the government. Regarding robbery, he contrasts the effect of that done by an individual with that done by government, the former being abhorrent, the latter lauded. Regarding the fall of government, Locke draws distinctions between conquest (external), usurpation (internal), tyranny (internal with the benefit going to the tyrant), and degradation into anarchy. The basis of political society is that people give up their natural right of force available in a state of nature to get the protection of property, which includes threat of punishment and legal recourse. The latter provides for the third branch of government. Regarding monarchy, he shows that almost all forms were at some point elective, originally when a king was designated and accepted; later anytime that decision is validated. The legislative is the first and supreme power, being directly designated by the people.
April 23, 2019
The foundation stone of the modern state; and being such it is a very technical and concentrated book. The discourse of the 'Second Treatise' is a building of the state from the ground up, in a sort of sociological interpretation of the evolution from society to state, which then slowly moves towards political and legal dimensions of the state. A laborious but rewarding read
Locke provides a very good critique of the "Divine Right of Kings", a doctrine still in practice today. When one sees the time in which it was written, it gives one the sense of the monumental critique Locke is providing. It used to be thought of the "Divine Right of Kings" as the natural state of the world. Just as rain fell from clouds and apples grew on apple trees, so did Kings rule over you. But Locke showed them what for.
The 'Letter Concerning Toleration' read like a breeze, truly in the spirit of the enlightenment.
Locke provides a very good critique of the "Divine Right of Kings", a doctrine still in practice today. When one sees the time in which it was written, it gives one the sense of the monumental critique Locke is providing. It used to be thought of the "Divine Right of Kings" as the natural state of the world. Just as rain fell from clouds and apples grew on apple trees, so did Kings rule over you. But Locke showed them what for.
The 'Letter Concerning Toleration' read like a breeze, truly in the spirit of the enlightenment.
April 21, 2007
John Locke is right about more or less everything.
October 21, 2022
An inaccurate account of the rise of state power but at least its theory of property is accurate; less pessimistic and more hopeful than Hobbes. Unlike Hobbes, Locke argues there is a right to rebel. This books is basically the intellectual foundation of much in the U.S.A. and is a must read for anyone serious about political theory or constitutional law. State power is not in fact the expression of an implicit or express social contract. Despite theoretical inaccuracy this work was very influential, because it cohered neatly with the rise of global trade, a definining feature of industrialization and modernity. Takes up Aristotle's idea of the state as serving the greatest good, but wrongly rejects Aristotle's correct view that state power arises as an extension of family clan tribe and nation. But in a multi-ethnic capitalist state with religious diversity like the U.S.A. a theory based on the idea that the state is nought but a giant business deal would inevitably come to the fore. A lesson in how to be wrong, yet succesful, by cohering one's own ideas to the greater society: and thus bereft of true insight or innovation. Hence but 4 stars, despite its great influence.
April 22, 2025
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government presents a complex if tenuous political theory that balances two distinct frameworks: a libertarian natural law perspective and a democratic social contract. These frameworks, while intertwined, have fueled divergent interpretations of Locke’s thought, each emphasizing different aspects of his work.
The libertarian natural law reading, championed by C.B. Macpherson as “possessive individualism,” highlights Locke’s early chapters on individual autonomy and Chapter V on property. Here, Locke grounds property rights in labor and first use, subject to the “Lockean proviso” (as termed by Robert Nozick), which requires that enough resources remain for others. This view portrays Locke’s political theory as a defense of private acquisition and individual liberty rooted in natural rights, although the proviso anticipates Henry George’s critique of unearned land rent. Conversely, the democratic social contract interpretation, advanced by Willmoore Kendall in Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule, focuses on later chapters establishing majority rule within a consensual civil society. Once the social contract—whether implied or explicit—is formed, legislative authority defines the norms and limits of governance.
My synthesis of these perspectives suggests that Locke’s natural rights are negative in nature, protecting the rightful use of one’s faculties and justly acquired property, but they are defined and constrained by the civil society’s legislative framework. This reconciliation acknowledges both the primacy of individual liberty and the necessity of collective governance.
Beyond this duality, Locke’s intellectual foundations spark further debate. Leo Strauss, in Natural Right and History, questions whether Locke was a crypto-Hobbesian materialist or a Christian humanist in the tradition of More, Erasmus, and the Latitudinarians. While this question lies largely outside the Second Treatise, it underscores Locke’s nuanced position. Unlike Hobbes’s materialist state of nature, Locke’s is more social, employing theistic language and imposing a natural duty to avoid harming others or their possessions. Yet, these duties remain voluntary and negative, aligning with modern natural right principles that resonate with certain Christian ethics but diverge from ancient conceptions. Locke’s response to Robert Filmer’s divine right of kings, rather than Hobbes’s contractualism, further clarifies his intent to universalize Christian natural law principles beyond patriarchal or hereditary authority.
A conservative reading of Locke, as I infer from the libertarian originalist Randy Barnett, emphasizes the non-consensual aspects of his theory. In the chapter on prerogative, Locke defends executive power—akin to a “moderate monarchy”—that acts where law is silent or even contrary to law, provided it aligns with natural justice. This executive power, derived from the natural right to self-defense and punishment, operates independently of consent, as Harvey Mansfield notes in The Taming of the Prince. However, positive obligations, such as taxation or property contributions, require legislative consent from a body of free men. Locke’s federative power, which organizes collective endeavors like militias, complements this executive authority, while the legislative power remains democratic in origin. This tension between natural law and social contract theory reveals Locke’s concessions to monarchy, as even absolutist Jean Bodin acknowledged that taxation required popular consent.
Locke’s theory of consent raises challenges for democratic sovereignty. Taken to its extreme, universal consent could lead to anarchism, as minorities, future generations, or individuals could veto or exit state authority. Locke’s concept of tacit consent mitigates this, but his focus on legislative power as popular in origin does not fully account for non-republican governments, such as monarchical Britain or historical Venice and Rome. His engagement with Filmer concedes a filial duty post-maturity and recognizes the historical prevalence of monarchy modeled on paternal rule, yet he reframes these as expedient rather than divinely ordained.
The final chapter on the dissolution of government cautiously addresses resistance. Locke avoids explicitly endorsing revolution, arguing that a total absence of consent or redress of grievances renders governance unlawful, effectively returning society to a state of war. He cites absolutist William Barclay, who permitted defensive resistance by the general body of the people in cases of ruler abdication, aligning with Locke’s view that such distinctions are negligible. This framework influenced the American Founding, with Jefferson’s “long train of abuses” echoing Locke’s cautious justification for resistance.
In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke advocates a strong separationist stance, opposing coercive religious measures and favoring toleration of peaceful sects. However, he excludes atheists, whom he deems untrustworthy in agreements, and possibly Catholics and Muslims loyal to foreign powers, though his broader writings suggest toleration of pagans. Unlike Hobbes, who viewed oaths as binding only believers, Locke grants magistrates authority to persuade on matters of religious indifference, aligning with contemporary civic religion’s secular aims. He likely would have opposed tax-funded religious institutions but recognized the state’s role in promoting shared values.
Locke’s Second Treatise thus offers a multifaceted political theory, blending natural law and social contract principles, Christian ethics, and pragmatic governance. Its influence on the 18th century and the American Founding underscores its enduring relevance, navigating the delicate balance between individual liberty, collective authority, and moral duty despite some apparent inconsistencies.
The libertarian natural law reading, championed by C.B. Macpherson as “possessive individualism,” highlights Locke’s early chapters on individual autonomy and Chapter V on property. Here, Locke grounds property rights in labor and first use, subject to the “Lockean proviso” (as termed by Robert Nozick), which requires that enough resources remain for others. This view portrays Locke’s political theory as a defense of private acquisition and individual liberty rooted in natural rights, although the proviso anticipates Henry George’s critique of unearned land rent. Conversely, the democratic social contract interpretation, advanced by Willmoore Kendall in Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule, focuses on later chapters establishing majority rule within a consensual civil society. Once the social contract—whether implied or explicit—is formed, legislative authority defines the norms and limits of governance.
My synthesis of these perspectives suggests that Locke’s natural rights are negative in nature, protecting the rightful use of one’s faculties and justly acquired property, but they are defined and constrained by the civil society’s legislative framework. This reconciliation acknowledges both the primacy of individual liberty and the necessity of collective governance.
Beyond this duality, Locke’s intellectual foundations spark further debate. Leo Strauss, in Natural Right and History, questions whether Locke was a crypto-Hobbesian materialist or a Christian humanist in the tradition of More, Erasmus, and the Latitudinarians. While this question lies largely outside the Second Treatise, it underscores Locke’s nuanced position. Unlike Hobbes’s materialist state of nature, Locke’s is more social, employing theistic language and imposing a natural duty to avoid harming others or their possessions. Yet, these duties remain voluntary and negative, aligning with modern natural right principles that resonate with certain Christian ethics but diverge from ancient conceptions. Locke’s response to Robert Filmer’s divine right of kings, rather than Hobbes’s contractualism, further clarifies his intent to universalize Christian natural law principles beyond patriarchal or hereditary authority.
A conservative reading of Locke, as I infer from the libertarian originalist Randy Barnett, emphasizes the non-consensual aspects of his theory. In the chapter on prerogative, Locke defends executive power—akin to a “moderate monarchy”—that acts where law is silent or even contrary to law, provided it aligns with natural justice. This executive power, derived from the natural right to self-defense and punishment, operates independently of consent, as Harvey Mansfield notes in The Taming of the Prince. However, positive obligations, such as taxation or property contributions, require legislative consent from a body of free men. Locke’s federative power, which organizes collective endeavors like militias, complements this executive authority, while the legislative power remains democratic in origin. This tension between natural law and social contract theory reveals Locke’s concessions to monarchy, as even absolutist Jean Bodin acknowledged that taxation required popular consent.
Locke’s theory of consent raises challenges for democratic sovereignty. Taken to its extreme, universal consent could lead to anarchism, as minorities, future generations, or individuals could veto or exit state authority. Locke’s concept of tacit consent mitigates this, but his focus on legislative power as popular in origin does not fully account for non-republican governments, such as monarchical Britain or historical Venice and Rome. His engagement with Filmer concedes a filial duty post-maturity and recognizes the historical prevalence of monarchy modeled on paternal rule, yet he reframes these as expedient rather than divinely ordained.
The final chapter on the dissolution of government cautiously addresses resistance. Locke avoids explicitly endorsing revolution, arguing that a total absence of consent or redress of grievances renders governance unlawful, effectively returning society to a state of war. He cites absolutist William Barclay, who permitted defensive resistance by the general body of the people in cases of ruler abdication, aligning with Locke’s view that such distinctions are negligible. This framework influenced the American Founding, with Jefferson’s “long train of abuses” echoing Locke’s cautious justification for resistance.
In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke advocates a strong separationist stance, opposing coercive religious measures and favoring toleration of peaceful sects. However, he excludes atheists, whom he deems untrustworthy in agreements, and possibly Catholics and Muslims loyal to foreign powers, though his broader writings suggest toleration of pagans. Unlike Hobbes, who viewed oaths as binding only believers, Locke grants magistrates authority to persuade on matters of religious indifference, aligning with contemporary civic religion’s secular aims. He likely would have opposed tax-funded religious institutions but recognized the state’s role in promoting shared values.
Locke’s Second Treatise thus offers a multifaceted political theory, blending natural law and social contract principles, Christian ethics, and pragmatic governance. Its influence on the 18th century and the American Founding underscores its enduring relevance, navigating the delicate balance between individual liberty, collective authority, and moral duty despite some apparent inconsistencies.
May 8, 2012
Of all the great scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and political theorists we studied this past semester, John Locke is my favorite.
In my oral final, I was asked to summarize each political philosopher with one sentence. My sentence for John Locke was, "Jefferson, you're welcome!" The more I read of Locke, the more I saw Jefferson and I loved it!
At some point in my reading this book, I scrawled in the cover the following: "Locke stokes the flames of rebellion, fueled by the embers of righteous self-preservation." I thoroughly enjoyed his systematic explanation of the origin of rights and governmental power and authority.
Necessarily, it starts with the individual. God gives life, and with that gift comes great responsibility to honor, preserve, and improve that life. In order to accomplish this sacred duty, one must be free to exercise his will to that end, and he must be able to retain ownership of the fruits of his efforts. The sacred duty to preserve self is not the same as selfishness. It's more akin to the safety instructions given on a plane shortly after boarding that in case of an emergency depressurizing the cabin, one should put the oxygen mask first on oneself before helping others put their masks on.
Because property plays an important role in our stewardship, people tend to want to protect their property. In a state of nature, the effort to protect one's things potentially consumes excessive amounts of time and resources; consequently, people have a natural tendency to aggregate and form governments explicitly to protect their life, liberty, and property. The effort to protect is delegated to representatives, and this frees the people to pursue more productive endeavors.
Locke's analysis of proper government is spot on in so many ways. My book looks like one of my kids' coloring books, because I underlined, circled, hi-lighted, and scribbled so many notes in it. I'll share just a few of the rules he points out.
"...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
All men are born equal. There is no reasonable or rational claim to the divine right of kings.
He who would threaten my life, liberty, or property puts himself in a state of war against me, and as long as I am under threat of force from him, I am justified (if not duty bound) to resist him, even to his destruction.
"Without law there is no liberty." But the law must apply to all equally. If the law or the government demands or prohibits something that violates the inalienable rights of man, it violates its sole purpose for existing.
"...the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and... of every person in it."
Legislative power: 1) cannot be arbitrary/cannot exceed natural rights. 2) Cannot become a power in itself-it, too, is ruled by the law. 3) Cannot take a man's property without his consent. 4) Cannot delegate law-making to any other power.
The people have a responsibility to defend their life, liberty, and property-even from their own legislators.
The Executive is subordinate to the Legislature. The Executive must always be "in being", whereas the Legislature should only convene from time to time, because laws should not need to be made continuously, but they must be constantly enforced.
I'll do a longer post dedicated on Locke's discussion of prerogative later. For now, know that laws and constitutions set limits, not minimums - especially concerning punishment of crimes. The offender may be punished, but that does not mean he should or must be punished. Locke says, "This power to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative."
I struggled with some of Locke's ideas about education, but I may explore them more in another post.
Finally, I enjoyed Locke's letter on toleration. He was ahead of his time. He also impressed me with some of his comments that I found profoundly in tune with the Spirit of Christ. He basically called for the separation of Church and State, and not in the cheap way that phrase is tossed around today, but with a conviction that worship and faith is essential to a moral people and a sound government; however, using either physical or legal force to obligate or influence another to be faithful is not only ineffective, it is offensive to God.
"Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression."
I feel I have made this post much too long. Yet, I have barely scratched the surface of the many great things Locke observed and explained. I am excited to reread this and find other writings of Locke. I can see why he was so influential on our Founding Fathers.
In my oral final, I was asked to summarize each political philosopher with one sentence. My sentence for John Locke was, "Jefferson, you're welcome!" The more I read of Locke, the more I saw Jefferson and I loved it!
At some point in my reading this book, I scrawled in the cover the following: "Locke stokes the flames of rebellion, fueled by the embers of righteous self-preservation." I thoroughly enjoyed his systematic explanation of the origin of rights and governmental power and authority.
Necessarily, it starts with the individual. God gives life, and with that gift comes great responsibility to honor, preserve, and improve that life. In order to accomplish this sacred duty, one must be free to exercise his will to that end, and he must be able to retain ownership of the fruits of his efforts. The sacred duty to preserve self is not the same as selfishness. It's more akin to the safety instructions given on a plane shortly after boarding that in case of an emergency depressurizing the cabin, one should put the oxygen mask first on oneself before helping others put their masks on.
Because property plays an important role in our stewardship, people tend to want to protect their property. In a state of nature, the effort to protect one's things potentially consumes excessive amounts of time and resources; consequently, people have a natural tendency to aggregate and form governments explicitly to protect their life, liberty, and property. The effort to protect is delegated to representatives, and this frees the people to pursue more productive endeavors.
Locke's analysis of proper government is spot on in so many ways. My book looks like one of my kids' coloring books, because I underlined, circled, hi-lighted, and scribbled so many notes in it. I'll share just a few of the rules he points out.
"...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
All men are born equal. There is no reasonable or rational claim to the divine right of kings.
He who would threaten my life, liberty, or property puts himself in a state of war against me, and as long as I am under threat of force from him, I am justified (if not duty bound) to resist him, even to his destruction.
"Without law there is no liberty." But the law must apply to all equally. If the law or the government demands or prohibits something that violates the inalienable rights of man, it violates its sole purpose for existing.
"...the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and... of every person in it."
Legislative power: 1) cannot be arbitrary/cannot exceed natural rights. 2) Cannot become a power in itself-it, too, is ruled by the law. 3) Cannot take a man's property without his consent. 4) Cannot delegate law-making to any other power.
The people have a responsibility to defend their life, liberty, and property-even from their own legislators.
The Executive is subordinate to the Legislature. The Executive must always be "in being", whereas the Legislature should only convene from time to time, because laws should not need to be made continuously, but they must be constantly enforced.
I'll do a longer post dedicated on Locke's discussion of prerogative later. For now, know that laws and constitutions set limits, not minimums - especially concerning punishment of crimes. The offender may be punished, but that does not mean he should or must be punished. Locke says, "This power to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative."
I struggled with some of Locke's ideas about education, but I may explore them more in another post.
Finally, I enjoyed Locke's letter on toleration. He was ahead of his time. He also impressed me with some of his comments that I found profoundly in tune with the Spirit of Christ. He basically called for the separation of Church and State, and not in the cheap way that phrase is tossed around today, but with a conviction that worship and faith is essential to a moral people and a sound government; however, using either physical or legal force to obligate or influence another to be faithful is not only ineffective, it is offensive to God.
"Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression."
I feel I have made this post much too long. Yet, I have barely scratched the surface of the many great things Locke observed and explained. I am excited to reread this and find other writings of Locke. I can see why he was so influential on our Founding Fathers.
November 24, 2025
How do you even rate a book like this. He lowkey went off and I hope I sound like he does when I’m making an argument.
October 29, 2025
boring but influential or whatever
December 22, 2023
I am proud to announce I Tolerated this book for five weeks. Awe-inspiringly influential, until you read it and it’s mostly “waah hands of MY shit, people shouldn’t starve except if it would cost money waaah”.
Sure, I am being facetious, but for the love of God why are we still treating his words as anything but an interesting tidbit of European history? Granted, his ideas were influential, but I can only read so many thinly-veiled defenses of the One Good English King before the absurdity of treating this text as Gospel crushes my mind into a thin pancake.
Sure, I am being facetious, but for the love of God why are we still treating his words as anything but an interesting tidbit of European history? Granted, his ideas were influential, but I can only read so many thinly-veiled defenses of the One Good English King before the absurdity of treating this text as Gospel crushes my mind into a thin pancake.
November 4, 2017
Locke is one of the many philosophers I am familiar with through secondary sources. but this was my first reading of his work. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke painstakingly covers power in the parental, political, commonwealth, legislative, and tyrannical modes, leading to a conclusion that is equally applicable to social contract theory (explicitly put by Jean-Jacques Rousseau) and the doctrine of the separation of powers. What is taken for granted in liberal democracies today has a clear lineage to Locke. This book also contains Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration", focusing on freedom of the practice of religion. Freedom of speech and religion are major themes in the letter, with Locke reinforcing what many still regard as proper democratic practice: punish those who break the law, rather than discriminate against individuals with religious characteristics that may, because of unfamiliar or incomprehensible (to conservatives, at least) differences that the dominant group may find confronting. I held the view while reading the Treatise that this might only apply to Christians, but the Letter makes it clear that while "Mahometans" might be "rightly considered" infidels (by Christians), they (and anyone of any religion, even atheists) still had the right to live, work, prosper, and worship as they saw fit so long as they did so with respect for the rule of law. It is interesting that the concepts of liberalism, the social contract, the doctrine of the separation of powers, and the "rule of law" all make an appearance in these works, these are not explicitly mentioned or defined. Yet the definitions and justifications of these concepts used in the present reflect precisely Locke's ideas. That he is known as the "father of liberalism" makes a good deal of sense. Reading Hobbes will be an important endeavour, but so too is the understanding of history, especially of the "Glorious Revolution of 1688", in understanding Locke's work. I also need to read Burke and Kant. While it would probably be smarter to begin at the beginning and work my way through in some sort of chronological order in reading some of the greatest thinkers in political theory, but at the same time, I enjoy the haphazard manner in the same way that one can enjoy a jigsaw puzzle. Not that I pretend that I can ever complete this endeavour, but each completed reading adds a sense of understanding that would otherwise never be gained. Finally, Locke was surprisingly easy to read. Hobbes will be much harder, but there is something about the Enlightenment that changed the nature of written English. Laurence Sterne, too, has a modern form yet it is of the eighteenth century, but Locke's style is not too far removed. I had never considered before how written English may have changed to attract a larger audience. I have been grappling with whether to drop the essay as a form of assessment for undergraduate students (where possible), but also felt like I may be selling out. But an important lesson from history is that it has happened before, and it will happen again; the world never did fall apart. And so we may well be in that space once more. Not because of Facebook, or short attention spans, but because of an undoing of the intellectual elite. Just a thought.
Read
December 5, 2009"Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalty of death..." 2
"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." 3
"Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy." 14
"For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom." 25
"The reigns of good princes have always been most dangerous to the liberties of their people" 76-77
"Wherever law ends tyranny begins" 92
"No peace and security, no, not even so much as a common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails, that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms." 126
"Nay, God himself will not save man against their wills." 129
"No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed." 131
"Faith only, and inward sincerity, are the things that procure acceptance with God." 131
"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." 3
"Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy." 14
"For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom." 25
"The reigns of good princes have always been most dangerous to the liberties of their people" 76-77
"Wherever law ends tyranny begins" 92
"No peace and security, no, not even so much as a common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails, that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms." 126
"Nay, God himself will not save man against their wills." 129
"No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed." 131
"Faith only, and inward sincerity, are the things that procure acceptance with God." 131
February 28, 2016
Really well written and expressed, unlike other certain dense thinkers.
However, though he comes to many good conclusions, the premises are definitely wobbly.
Just a sampling:
* Individual possession as basis for rights: oddly enough it is the baptists who should tell us better. Man does not possess himself, but is owned by God, therefore everything else he owns, he owns in stewardship for the common good of man. Although Locke insists that mixing labor with land makes property, he knew that the claims were not absolute: to withhold from those without sustenance was robbery (see his first treatise).
* Natural law: I don't know if Locke is the first, but natural law is a much harder book to read than Scripture and subject to all the same quagmires of interpretation (incidentally his discussion of heresy and schism is hopelessly jejune).
* Social contract: this isn't how men work. I have to look into it more, but I've heard good arguments that this notion of delegating authority isn't really realistic. If Locke was a Calvinist, it was odd that he should hinge everything on choice. (Although I do like his discussion of freedom as something positive; it should put many of his intellectual grandchildren to shame.)
However, though he comes to many good conclusions, the premises are definitely wobbly.
Just a sampling:
* Individual possession as basis for rights: oddly enough it is the baptists who should tell us better. Man does not possess himself, but is owned by God, therefore everything else he owns, he owns in stewardship for the common good of man. Although Locke insists that mixing labor with land makes property, he knew that the claims were not absolute: to withhold from those without sustenance was robbery (see his first treatise).
* Natural law: I don't know if Locke is the first, but natural law is a much harder book to read than Scripture and subject to all the same quagmires of interpretation (incidentally his discussion of heresy and schism is hopelessly jejune).
* Social contract: this isn't how men work. I have to look into it more, but I've heard good arguments that this notion of delegating authority isn't really realistic. If Locke was a Calvinist, it was odd that he should hinge everything on choice. (Although I do like his discussion of freedom as something positive; it should put many of his intellectual grandchildren to shame.)
May 6, 2011
An excellent summary of the ideas and theories that compromise the society and culture of a capitalist republic. Though there are some details that one might dispute, it is clear that Locke is well-versed in his theories, and has an understanding of some of the truths behind human nature. An excellent place to start for anyone who is interested in beginning a study of Political Philosophy.
March 18, 2020
It was very interesting when John Locke was picking apart Sir Robert Filmer's writings. I think that John Locke provides an excellent view on politics and how people should be governed. I really enjoyed John Locke analyzing Sir Robert Filmer's surprisingly delusional writings. In the end John Locke's revolutionary form of government helped shape many countries. I wouldn't change anything.
November 27, 2009
I learned a great deal from this book, much about natural law, paternal law and duty, about why man forms society and how legislature works and when it doesn't, about conquering and being conquered - it's really a tremendous read. There are many truths to be learned here, highly recommend it!
October 13, 2010
We have John Locke and this essay to thank for our fundamental beliefs in inalienable human rights and freedom from tyranny. If you want to form a real understanding of these principles, not just regurgitated talking points, then this is the book for you. Read this book!
June 18, 2016
While the basis of western government lies upon a foundation of John Locke's writing, we've pretty much forgotten what he said. This is an essential read for just about anybody who wants to say something intelligent about our political situation.
July 15, 2020
Probably Locke's works had a huge impact back in the day, but in my view, this book had a few remarkable ideas drowned in just too many words, that made it a painfully boring read. I was lucky that the book was rather short :)
March 6, 2007
Definitely one of the must-read political philosophy books. Better than Leviathan but the two must often be read in concert. The American Founding Fathers all read Locke.
April 27, 2007
makes an interesting case for executive privilege
December 27, 2007
It's interesting to look at the foundation while the house we live in is being torn down.
January 4, 2008
Concise and necessary. Read it. Be better for it.
March 28, 2009
A great read - helped to build the foundation for constitutional democracy.
July 31, 2014
Locke writes about the role of government in the Second Thesis and about government's role in religion in the letter on tolerance. A good view on the political thinking of the period.
April 13, 2019
Importance of subject matter: 5
Importance of thesis: 5
Presented arguments in favor of thesis: 3
Clarity of disposition: 3
Prose: 4
Page turner factor: 4
Mind blown factor: 3
Final score: 3.6
Importance of thesis: 5
Presented arguments in favor of thesis: 3
Clarity of disposition: 3
Prose: 4
Page turner factor: 4
Mind blown factor: 3
Final score: 3.6
January 9, 2020
This work inspired the founders of America.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews