Two Treatises of Government

I doubt very much that anyone nowadays is going to quibble with Locke's anti-divine right of kings position. But he has nothing to put in his place but "protection of property" i.e. unfettered global capitalism and that whole filthy liberal project--and when both conservative (Burke) and proto-"reform liberalism" (Mill) thinkers would so easily go him one better in terms of compassion, inspiration, and humanity, that seems a tad feeble. (To say nothing of the religious, Utopian, and revolutionary alternative traditions.) Also he doesn't come to terms at all with the slave trade, at best, and condones it at worst, and elides over the gross exclusionary implications of his focus on poverty with glib talk about social contract v. state of show more war, and I think that's just cowardly. "Right of conquest" my fucking cock, Johnny, and while the yucky seepage of your venal, pedantic ideas into documents like the American Declaration of Independence may have dragged the discourse in a less sanguinary-absolutist direction and we can all appreciate that (and the "right of conquest" is to a certain degree balanced by the "right of revolution"), they also did more than almost any other writing to permit our greed-based society. The word "property" should never appear in anyone's foundational principles, ever. show less

Despite my ambitious plan to at least skim the First Treatise, I only read Locke's Second Treatise.

I was surprised at how much I liked this book, especially since I started out pretty disgusted by Locke's viewpoint. The two main things that irritated me:

1) His opinion that the primary goal of government is to preserve property. This just felt really materialistic to me. I felt better about this one when I read the parenthetical aside in chapter XV that read, "By property I must be understood here, as in other places to mean that property which men have in their persons as well as goods," which I take to mean the intangible qualities of a person as well as the material things he owns. Seems like such an important definition might have show more been placed a little earlier in the book, but I wasn't Locke's editor.

2) His chapter on slavery, in which he asserts that slavery is okay as long as the people taken as slaves first entered into a state of war, thereby forfeiting their natural rights to life and liberty. In the notes to the edition I read, it explained that Locke used this reasoning to justify the African slave trade in the Americas. It's a real stretch to claim that every African slave in the Americas in the 17th century was a combatant in a just war against the government enslaving them. Even if this were so, how does that justify keeping their children (and grandchildren) as slaves? In another note, I read that Locke had made part of his wealth in the slave trade, so he had a vested interest in finding a reason why slavery was okay. Unlike with property, there were no parentheticals to help me feel better about Locke's views on slavery.

As I read on, I focussed more on how Locke's philosophy fits in with the political situation in England at the time (from James I through Charles I and the civil war, about which I read in David Hume's The History of England, Volume V; my classics reading is already paying off, even if it is primarily helpful when I'm reading other classics) and on just how much United States government is based on Locke's philosophy. This really increased my enjoyment of this treatise.

For more of this review, please visit my blog, Imperfect Happiness. show less

This is one of the classic texts of political philosophy and had a great influence on the development of the US political system. I nevertheless found the book disappointing finding that it providing much less than I had expected. In particular, I found Locke's discussion of property to be particularly unconvincing. That said, it is impressive to think that Locke feared imprisonment and even execution as a result of what he wrote.

One surprising aspect of the book was learning how big a role that American Indians played in the thinking of those days about the "natural state" of man. Locke's theories on the emergence of society and government are, however, pure fantasies and are not supported by modern anthropological research. it was show more tempted to imagine how different this book would have been if it had been written based upon real research rather than his armchair philosophizing. Unfortunately, for our thinking about politics, Locke's origin myths seem to persevere.

The first treatise is essentially a refutation of Sir Filmer's biblical justification of the monarchy and offers little to the modern reader. Despite that, I found it entertaining to see how Locke demolished Filmer's argunements and to identify a few places were Locke even turned snarky. The second treatise is, of course, the meat of what made this work so famous. It is therefore more entertaining and a more useful read.

This particular edition is not recommended for the casual reader since it strives to be more of a scholarly edition. One of the disadvantages is having to put up with 17th century spelling of words. The introduction material is also very dry and targeted more to explain textual issues than to explain the ideas in the work. show less

Locke's Two Treatises of Government surprisingly lived up to my expectations. He argues in two parts: 1) apologists for monarchical governments are wrong and 2) the people of a society are the ones with ultimate power and sway over the social contract. This latter argument is the more important part for contemporary and present-day people that want to understand this thing we call "freedom." However, without the first Treatise, the second loses its context–it demonstrates Locke's motivation.

Additionally, I found the introductory material to the Cambridge Student Edition edited by Peter Laslett fascinating. Laslett provides context surround thing the history of the text alongside some useful analysis of Locke that made reading the Two show more Treatises much easier.

Locke should be required reading--to some extent--for people that wish to participate in and benefit from a democracy. show less

Originally published in the wake of the Glorious Revolution these two essays were neglected due to a glut of tracts and treatise in support of the events of 1689-90, it wasn’t until the 1760s that they become important in political discourse. Two Treatise of Government by John Locke were a refutation of absolute monarchy and the theory of the state of nature and how government is created.

The less famous First Treatise is a straight line for line critique of Sir Robert Filmer’s divine right absolutist monarch supporting tract, Patriarcha, the conclusion of which Locke examines the Bible and history to demolish Filmer’s hypothesis. In the Second Treatise Locke turns from Filmer’s work into his own theories of the state of nature show more and how it eventually led to the formation of a government by contract between individuals. Overall, the First Treatise is slog with Locke apparently having to repeat the same evidence to refute Filmer and essentially isn’t needed to understand its follow-up. On the other hand, the Second Treatise begins slowly as Locke references Filmer until transition to his own theory of the state of nature that leads to his own contract theory that is thought-provoking and historically influential.

Two Treatise of Government while being connected as a refutation and then opposing argument, the latter work by John Locke this is more profound not only as political theory and from an historical perspective. show less

A lot of it is wasted on pointless argumentation about what exactly does the Bible say about the right to rule. There's a lot of Bible quoting and it doesn't get sensible until halfway through. The rest of it is groundbreaking nevertheless quite common sense nowadays. Except the bit about rulers not being allowed to appoint other rulers who were not elected directly by the people and ceding any law making power to them. Sounds like what is annoying people about the EU.

This volume contains Locke's argument against the divine right of kings. He argues both against the patriarchal theory of divine right and, in the Second Treatise, against the argument for absolutism presented in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Locke argues from natural law and maintains that government is a trust on behalf of the people. This work was very influential in the thinking of some of the political thinkers in the developing colonies in America.