Second Treatise of Government

By John Locke

Classic Books Library presents this brand new edition of John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”, published in 1689. This is one of two political works that Locke wrote articulating standards for a government-ruled society. Preceded by “The First Treatise”, which refutes the concept of ‘patriarchalism’ as presented by Sir Robert Filmer (1680), “The Second Treatise” describes a model for a civil state. Here he identifies what he refers to as natural law, suggesting that individuals in society are governed by natural law and have rights to uphold those laws for the protection of themselves and their property. In Locke’s theory, an all-ruling, sovereign government is replaced with one that serves its people and is subject to alteration should its functions become disengaged from that purpose. Locke (1632-1704) was a British philosopher and physician. He is associated with developing political philosophy and epistemological theories, the most significant being empiricism, and is often referred to as the ‘Father’ of liberalism.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Classic Books Library
• Release date: Aug 20, 2018
• ISBN: 9781528785969

John Locke

John Locke kommt 1632 im englischen Wrington zur Welt. Nach dem Besuch der Westminster School in London studiert Locke bis 1658 in Oxford. Zwischen 1660 und 1664 lehrt er dort Philosophie, Rhetorik und alte Sprachen. Sein enzyklopädisches Wissen und seine Studien in Erkenntnistheorie, Naturwissenschaften und Medizin bringen ihm früh die Mitgliedschaft in der Royal Society ein. Als Sekretär und Leibarzt des Earl of Shaftesbury ist Locke in Folge der politischen Machtkämpfe in England gezwungen, ins holländische Exil zu fliehen. Erst 1689 kehrt er nach England zurück und widmet sich auf seinem Landgut seinen Studien. Im selben Jahr erscheint anonym Ein Brief über Toleranz, der die ausschließliche Aufgabe des Staates im Schutz von Leben, Besitz und Freiheit seiner Bürger bestimmt. Die hier formulierten Ideen finden in der amerikanischen Unabhängigkeitserklärung ihren politischen Widerhall. Lockes Hauptwerk, der Versuch über den menschlichen Verstand, erscheint erst 1690 vollständig, wird aber vermutlich bereit 20 Jahre früher begonnen. Es begründet die Erkenntnistheorie als neuzeitliche Form des Philosophierens, die besonders in der französischen Aufklärung nachwirkt. Locke lehnt darin Descartes' Vorstellung von den eingeborenen Ideen ab und vertritt einen konsequenten Empirismus. Aus der theoretischen Einsicht in die Begrenztheit der Erkenntnisfähigkeit ergibt sich für Locke die Forderung, daß sich weder ein Staatssouverän noch eine Glaubensgemeinschaft im Besitz der allein gültigen Wahrheit wähnen darf. Der mündige Bürger, der in der Lage ist, kritisch selbst zu entscheiden, wird konsequenterweise zum pädagogischen Ziel Lockes. John Locke stirbt 1704 als europäische Berühmtheit auf seinem Landsitz in Oates.

Book preview

1.png

SECOND TREATISE

OF GOVERNMENT

By

JOHN LOCKE

First published in 1690

This edition published by Read Books Ltd.

Copyright © 2018 Read Books Ltd.

This book is copyright and may not be

reproduced or copied in any way without

the express permission of the publisher in writing

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library

Contents

John Locke

CHAPTER. I.

AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE TRUE ORIGINAL, EXTENT AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER. II.

OF THE STATE OF NATURE.

CHAPTER. III.

OF THE STATE OF WAR.

CHAPTER. IV.

OF SLAVERY.

CHAPTER. V.

OF PROPERTY.

CHAPTER. VI.

OF PATERNAL POWER.

CHAPTER. VII.

OF POLITICAL OR CIVIL SOCIETY.

CHAPTER. VIII.

OF THE BEGINNING OF POLITICAL SOCIETIES.

CHAPTER. IX.

OF THE ENDS OF POLITICAL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT.

CHAPTER. X.

OF THE FORMS OF A COMMON-WEALTH.

CHAPTER. XI.

OF THE EXTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.

CHAPTER. XII.

OF THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND FEDERATIVE POWER OF THE COMMON-WEALTH.

CHAPTER. XIII.

OF THE SUBORDINATION OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMON-WEALTH.

CHAPTER. XIV.

OF PREROGATIVE.

CHAPTER. XV.

OF PATERNAL, POLITICAL, AND DESPOTICAL POWER, CONSIDERED TOGETHER.

CHAPTER. XVI.

OF CONQUEST.

CHAPTER. XVII.

OF USURPATION.

CHAPTER. XVIII.

OF TYRANNY.

CHAPTER. XIX.

OF THE DISSOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT.

TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT. IN THE FORMER THE FALSE PRINCIPLES AND FOUNDATION OF SIR ROBERT FILMER AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE DETECTED AND OVERTHROWN. THE LATTER IS AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE TRUE ORIGINAL EXTENT AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

John Locke

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and known as the 'Father of Classical Liberalism.' Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to 'social contract theory.' His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy, as well as influencing Voltaire, Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers as well as the American revolutionaries.

John Locke was born on 29th August 1632, in a small thatched cottage in the village of Wrington, Somerset, England— about twelve miles outside of the city of Bristol. He was born to Puritan parents who sent the young boy to the prestigious Westminster School, under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham. After completing his studies there, Locke was admitted to Christ Church College, Oxford University, where he initially studied philosophy. As a student, Locke found the work of modern philosophers such as René Descartes much more interesting than the classical material taught at the university—and consequently was greatly irritated by the curriculum. Through a friend, Richard Lower, Locke was introduced to medicine and the experimental philosophy being pursued at other universities at the time; a passion which would never leave him.

Locke was awarded a bachelor's degree in 1656 and a master's degree in 1658. He obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674, having studied medicine extensively during his time at Oxford and worked with such noted scientists and thinkers as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower. In 1667, Locke became part of the Earl of Shaftesbury's retinue and coordinated the advice of several physicians when his employer was struck with a liver infection. It was in Shaftesbury's household, during 1671 that the meeting took place, described in the Epistle to the reader of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which inspired the whole essay. In this famous work, Locke outlined his theory of the mind and personal consciousness. His theory of the mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant.

Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that at birth, the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa, and contrary to Cartesian philosophy (based on pre-existing concepts), Locke maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception. Locke was also heavily involved in political philosophy, which he founded on 'social contract theory.' Unlike other thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes— Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. This was detailed in Two Treatises of Government (also inspired by the Earl of Shaftesbury and his Whig politics) which argued that in a natural state, where all people are equal and independent, everyone would have a natural right to defend his 'life, health, liberty or possessions.' Most scholars trace the phrase 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in the American Declaration of Independence to Locke's theory of rights.

Locke later fled to the Netherlands, in 1683—under strong suspicion of involvement in the Rye House Plot (a plan to assassinate King Charles II). Though today there is little evidence to suggest his involvement, Locke stayed in Holland for five years. He was able to devote a great deal of time rewriting the Essay and composing the Letter on Toleration. The bulk of Locke's publishing took place on his return from exile in 1688, with his aforementioned Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the Two Treatises of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration all appearing in quick succession. He later joined Lord and Lady Masham's country estate in Essex, but suffered from variable health and chronic asthma attacks, yet nevertheless became an intellectual hero of the Whigs and debated with figures such as John Dryden and Isaac Newton. John Locke died on 28th October 1704, and is buried in the churchyard of the village of High Laver, east of Harlow in Essex. This was where he had lived, in the Masham household since 1691. He never married, nor had any children.

Locke lived through some great events in English history; the English Restoration, the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were still in their infancy during Locke's life, and his works went on to exert a massive influence on political philosophy and modern liberalism as we know it. Such was his influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States, that one passage from the Second Treatise is produced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote: 'Bacon, Locke and Newton, I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences.' Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence and his profound insights into the world of epistemology and subjectivity are held to mark the beginning of modern Western conceptions of the self.

PREFACE

Reader, thou hast here the beginning and end of a discourse concerning government; what fate has otherwise disposed of the papers that should have filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, it is not worth while to tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the throne of our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin. If these papers have that evidence, I flatter myself is to be found in them, there will be no great miss of those which are lost, and my reader may be satisfied without them: for I imagine, I shall have neither the time, nor inclination to repeat my pains, and fill up the wanting part of my answer, by tracing Sir Robert again, through all the windings and obscurities, which are to be met with in the several branches of his wonderful system. The king, and body of the nation, have since so thoroughly confuted his Hypothesis, that I suppose no body hereafter will have either the confidence to appear against our common safety, and be again an advocate for slavery; or the weakness to be deceived with contradictions dressed up in a popular stile, and well-turned periods: for if any one will be at the pains, himself, in those parts, which are here untouched, to strip Sir Robert's discourses of the flourish of doubtful expressions, and endeavour to reduce his words to direct, positive, intelligible propositions, and then compare them one with another, he will quickly be satisfied, there was never so much glib nonsense put together in well-sounding English. If he think it not worth while to examine his works all thro', let him make an experiment in that part, where he treats of usurpation; and let him try, whether he can, with all his skill, make Sir Robert intelligible, and consistent with himself, or common sense. I should not speak so plainly of a gentleman, long since past answering, had not the pulpit, of late years, publicly owned his doctrine, and made it the current divinity of the times. It is necessary those men, who taking on them to be teachers, have so dangerously misled others, should be openly shewed of what authority this their Patriarch is, whom they have so blindly followed, that so they may either retract what upon so ill grounds they have vented, and cannot be maintained; or else justify those principles which they preached up for gospel; though they had no better an author than an English courtier: for I should not have writ against Sir Robert, or taken the pains to shew his mistakes, inconsistencies, and want of (what he so much boasts of, and pretends wholly to build on) scripture-proofs, were there not men amongst us, who, by crying up his books, and espousing his doctrine, save me from the reproach of writing against a dead adversary. They have been so zealous in this point, that, if I have done him any wrong, I cannot hope they should spare me. I wish, where they have done the truth and the public wrong, they would be as ready to redress it, and allow its just weight to this reflection, viz. that there cannot be done a greater mischief to prince and people, than the propagating wrong notions concerning government; that so at last all times might not have reason to complain of the Drum Ecclesiastic. If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hypothesis, I promise him either to recant my mistake, upon fair conviction; or to answer his difficulties. But he must remember two things.

First, That cavilling here and there, at some expression, or little incident of my discourse, is not an answer to my book.

Secondly, That I shall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of these worth my notice, though I shall always look on myself as bound to give satisfaction to any one, who shall appear to be conscientiously scrupulous in the point, and shall shew any just grounds for his scruples.

I have nothing more, but to advertise the reader, that Observations stands for Observations on Hobbs, Milton, &c. and that a bare quotation of pages always means pages of his Patriarcha, Edition 1680.

CHAPTER. I.

AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE TRUE ORIGINAL, EXTENT AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT

Sect. 1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,

(1). That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:

(2). That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:

(3). That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:

(4). That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam's posterity, being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretence to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance:

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Sect. 2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss, to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a MAGISTRATE over a subject may be distinguished from that of a FATHER over his children, a MASTER over his servant, a HUSBAND over his wife, and a LORD over his slave. All which distinct powers happening sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from wealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.

Sect. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.

CHAPTER. II.

OF THE STATE OF NATURE.

Sect. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.

Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person

Reviews for Second Treatise of Government

[jpsnow · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[vegetarian_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The social contract theorist: when NEW people ENTER the situation without full disclosure and consent, are they part of a social contract?

[iamchrysanthemum · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

A very important work but one that I mostly disagree with (chapter 5, I'm looking at you).

[kade_11 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Smaller than The Prince in length of pages but more broad than The Leviathan in terms of affirmative discussion of political structure. Whereas The Leviathan spends most of its time on the state of nature, and The Prince is antiquated in monarchy, Locke disposes with the state of nature quickly, and then discusses what we should do in terms of government. Read this if you can't stomach The Leviathan but have more intellectual interest than those who stop with The Prince. It's important that anybody who has any interest in American government have this on their shelves. A must for political scientists.

[stillatim · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

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 describe a legitimate state. He describes a legitimate state as one that originates in a compact between people in the state of nature, and then ignores the fact that there are no such states. (Note to America-boosters: the founders of America were not in the state of nature, they were already part of a civil society. America is the result of civil war/conquest, not compact). The much ballyhooed 'mingling of my labor' as a claim of property rights actually ends up meaning 'mingling of my labor, and that of my employees,' thus fundamentally undermining any justification that he might have had for the origins of property- because he has no account of how some people come to be employers and some to be employees.

As with all political theory that tries to lay out a rationale for people obeying modern nation states, it ignores history, logic and morality. Still, worth reading- it's short and easy to prove wrong. No wonder it's a staple in first year philosophy courses.

[cestovatela · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is the groundbreaking work of political philosophy that laid a philsophical framework for the existence of individual rights. Locke considers why people created government in the first place, using it as a basis to argue for a limited government with clear laws created to protect "life, liberty and property." Not exactly light reading for the poolside, but mandatory if you want to understand where the ideology of the US constitution came from.

[mbmackay · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I read this book immediately after Hobbe's Leviathan. I found both to be tough recreational reads, but there were sufficient rewards in both to cover the pain.Locke's book makes more sense to my modern mind - he quite rightly puts the view that the head of government (King or whatever) must be subject to the laws of the Commonwealth, and must not be judges in their own cases. This is the fundamental point of difference between Locke and Hobbes.But while Locke may be right, Hobbes is the better writer. While Hobbes is short, direct and punchy in his prose, Locke wanders and is need of a good editor. Often he summarises his views at the end of a chapter, and this reader couldn't help but think that the summary should be at the start, and most of the rest of the chapter ditched.While both want to be seen to be developing their position from first principles, both writer views are coloured by the English Civil War. Hobbes considers the rebels criminals; Locke supports their actions, and their writing shows their preferences.I was also amused to see (Ch 13) that fair electoral boundaries and equal representation was already a thorny issue. Gerrymandering is clearly not only a modern problem.Read Aug 2014

[tullius22 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Locke is boring. And I won't back down from that. The ideas in the book, however, are sound, at least along all the main lines of argument. And it is historically important, shaping influence, etc., and, actually, I think, much more so than certain other so-called Cornerstones of Western Civilization thinkers (Plato springs to mind for some reason). Stripped down to a pot-boiler summary, he says that a government by the consent of the governed, in which is the state is an instrument of the people, is better than having the whole country be prey to some Noxious Brute of a tyrant. And that's true, and at the time, it needed to be said, and there's still something to be said for being reminded of it. (And, of course, there's something to be said for a political philosopher whose ideas can be put into pot-boiler-summary form without producing an Emperor's New Clothes thing, where, suddenly--with say, I don't know, Plato or Marx--you'd just have to censor the pot-boiler summary, or maybe even stop people from boiling water in pots altogether, because if they did that, they might just learn too much about what perfect plans the political obscurantists are cooking up for them.) But I think it might also be reasonably said that, as a piece of prose, this book is no shining triumph. Nope, not the most accessible Treatise you'll ever pick up and read. It's more of a grind...I guess I might add one other thing though. I think that one of the other things Locke was saying was that, in a free country, the government is not your parent, and the state should not be able to treat you like a child if you're free. The relationship that free people have with their government should not be the same relationship that small children have with their parents. It's just that, since Locke's style, if you can call it that, (although I suppose I should thank him for writing in something that can tentatively be called English, which is better than many literati did back then--they mostly wrote in Latin, not least because it was something the ordinary sort couldn't access), is so opaque that you almost can't figure out what he's saying unless you already have a decent idea what he's saying before you start, and then give it a long long time to digest after you're done reading. (7/10)

[histreader · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Thankfully, we don't analogize the United States government as our parents. Parenthood implies a duty to guide and hold authority over its citizens. However, it was aptly utilized by John Locke to explain how minors are protected in their decision making by those God placed as their guardians, but conversely, government, through a commonwealth, is a voluntary association of men using common law to protect the most precious thing of all: property. And yes, property includes one's self.Laying the groundwork for federalism and arbitrariless ajudication of the law to promote equality and protect our "rights," John Locke writes a persuasive piece on a form of government not really in existance since the Roman empire. It is no wonder why the American Founding Fathers so widely adopted ideas from this writing.