Second Treatise of the Government

Second Treatise of the Government Plot Summary

Introduction

Political authority, its origins and limits have long been debated by philosophers and political thinkers. John Locke presents a vision of political society that stands in stark contrast to absolute monarchy theories prevalent in his time. He develops a systematic framework based on natural rights, consent, and limited government power, arguing that legitimate political authority stems not from divine right or tradition, but from the agreement of free and equal individuals seeking to protect their natural rights. The theory articulated here remains foundational to modern liberal democracy. By tracing political legitimacy to the consent of the governed, establishing property rights as fundamental, and defending resistance against tyranny, Locke establishes principles that continue to inform constitutional governance worldwide. His detailed examination of how political communities form, the proper scope of governmental power, and the people's right to dissolve governments that betray their trust offers a powerful analytical framework that allows us to evaluate political institutions by how well they secure individual liberty while maintaining social order.

Chapter 1: The State of Nature: Equal Freedom and Natural Rights

Locke begins his political philosophy by examining what he calls the state of nature—the condition in which humans would exist without formal government. Unlike Hobbes, who portrayed this state as chaotic and brutish, Locke describes it as a condition of perfect freedom and equality. People in this state have complete liberty to order their actions and dispose of their possessions without seeking permission from others, bounded only by the law of nature. This law of nature, accessible through reason, teaches that all humans are equal and independent, and therefore "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." Locke insists that the state of nature has its own moral framework; it is not a lawless condition but one governed by natural law. All persons in this state have both the right to govern their own affairs and the authority to punish those who transgress against them or others. However, the state of nature has significant practical limitations. Without established laws, recognized judges, or reliable enforcement mechanisms, the execution of natural law becomes irregular and uncertain. Each person must interpret and enforce the law individually, which inevitably leads to bias and inconsistency. Even well-intentioned individuals may disagree about what natural law requires in specific circumstances, or they may lack the power to enforce just punishments against stronger aggressors. These inconveniences motivate rational individuals to form political societies. Seeking more secure enjoyment of their natural rights, people willingly leave the state of nature and enter civil society. The crucial point is that government exists to remedy the defects of the state of nature—not to abrogate natural rights but to better secure them. The transition from natural freedom to political society occurs not because nature itself is defective, but because its enforcement mechanisms are unreliable without common institutions. Though sometimes described as merely hypothetical, Locke argues that relations between independent nations demonstrate that the state of nature is not purely theoretical. Without a common superior, sovereign states exist in a natural condition relative to one another. This demonstrates that political authority does not inherently exist but must be created through agreement among naturally free and equal individuals.

Chapter 2: Property Rights and the Limits of Appropriation

Locke's theory of property stands as one of his most innovative contributions to political philosophy. Beginning with the premise that God gave the earth to mankind in common, he confronts a fundamental question: How can individuals justly claim exclusive ownership of portions of this common inheritance without universal consent? His answer centers on labor: "Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." By applying labor to natural resources, individuals add value and transform common goods into private property. This labor-mixing establishes a natural right to property that precedes government and does not require the explicit consent of others. Importantly, Locke places two significant limitations on property acquisition in the state of nature. First, one may appropriate only what one can use before it spoils. There is no natural right to accumulate goods that will waste while others remain in need. Second, one must leave "enough and as good" for others—appropriation must not deprive others of similar opportunities. These conditions ensure that property rights serve human flourishing rather than enabling exploitation. The introduction of money, which Locke describes as a durable store of value created by tacit consent, transforms these natural limits. Money does not spoil, allowing for legitimate accumulation beyond immediate use. This innovation enables greater inequality of possessions without violating natural law, since people can convert perishable surplus into imperishable currency. Through this tacit agreement to use money, people also consent to the unequal possessions that monetary economies facilitate. Labor dramatically increases the value of natural resources. Locke observes that "the labour makes the far greater part of the value" of useful goods—perhaps ninety-nine hundredths of their worth. By this account, private appropriation through labor actually increases the common stock of wealth rather than depleting it. The enclosure of land and its improvement through cultivation makes it vastly more productive than land left in its natural state. In civil society, governments standardize and protect these natural property rights, but they do not create them. Since property rights originate in natural law, governments cannot legitimately violate them. This principle establishes a fundamental limitation on political power: government must secure property rather than arbitrarily dispose of it.

Chapter 3: From Natural Liberty to Political Society

The transition from natural liberty to political society constitutes a pivotal transformation in human relations. According to Locke, this shift occurs through voluntary agreement, not force or divine mandate. Individuals, recognizing the inconveniences of the state of nature, consensually relinquish their natural power of self-governance to form a community with common laws and institutions. This consent must be explicit, not merely tacit or presumed. Locke states: "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent." This consent forms the only legitimate basis for political authority; government established through conquest or usurpation lacks rightful power over individuals who have not agreed to it. When forming a political society, individuals transfer two crucial natural powers. First, they surrender their right to interpret and execute the law of nature according to their own judgment. Second, they yield their right to punish transgressors through individual action. These powers become vested in the community as a whole, which exercises them through established institutions and appointed officials. However, this surrender of natural liberty is conditional and purposive. People do not relinquish their rights absolutely but entrust them to government for specific ends—namely, the better preservation of their "lives, liberties, and estates," which Locke collectively terms "property" in its broadest sense. The political community exists to secure these fundamental rights more effectively than individuals could in the state of nature. The establishment of political society creates new social bonds and obligations. By consenting to join a commonwealth, each person becomes obligated to accept the decisions of the majority in matters of governance. Without this commitment to majority rule, political society would fragment at the first disagreement. Nevertheless, the authority granted to the majority remains constrained by the very purpose for which society was formed—the protection of natural rights. This account of political origins provides Locke's answer to the question of legitimate authority. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not from divine appointment, natural superiority, or patriarchal authority. Any regime claiming legitimacy must trace its authority to this original consent and continue to serve the purposes for which consent was given.

Chapter 4: Legislative Power and the Social Contract

Once individuals unite to form a political community, they must establish a system for making and enforcing laws. For Locke, the legislative power constitutes "the supreme power of the commonwealth," as it embodies the collective will of the society. This legislative authority may take various forms—democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, or mixed systems—but its legitimacy always derives from the consent of the people and remains bound by natural law. The legislative power, though supreme within the political system, is not unlimited. Locke identifies four fundamental constraints on legislative authority that flow directly from the purpose of government. First, it must govern by "established standing laws" that are known to the people, not by arbitrary decrees. Second, these laws must be designed solely for the public good. Third, it cannot raise taxes without the consent of the people. Fourth, the legislative power cannot transfer its law-making authority to any other body. These limitations reflect the fiduciary nature of legislative power. Lawmakers hold their authority in trust for the people and must exercise it according to the terms of that trust. As Locke states: "The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people." The separation of legislative from executive power serves as an essential safeguard against tyranny. Since laws require continuous enforcement but do not always require continuous making, Locke argues that these powers should typically be vested in different hands. The executive branch implements and enforces the laws established by the legislature, while a federative power (often combined with the executive) manages external relations with other political communities. This division of powers creates a system of institutional balance rather than absolute sovereignty. Though the legislative remains supreme in principle, the executive possesses certain prerogatives to act with discretion for the public good when circumstances require flexibility or swift action. This prerogative power, however, exists to fulfill the ends of government—not to undermine them. The resulting framework constitutes what we now recognize as constitutional government: a system where authority derives from popular consent, operates through established institutions with defined powers, and remains limited by fundamental principles of justice and natural right. This vision fundamentally rejects both absolute monarchy and unlimited democracy in favor of a balanced constitution that secures individual rights within an ordered society.

Chapter 5: Legitimate Authority vs. Tyranny: The Right of Resistance

A central concern in Locke's political theory is distinguishing legitimate authority from tyranny and determining when resistance becomes justified. Tyranny occurs when power is exercised "beyond right"—when rulers use their authority not for the public good but for private advantage. This definition applies regardless of the form of government; democracies can become tyrannical just as easily as monarchies when power exceeds its proper limits. Locke identifies several forms of political transgression that may justify resistance. Altering the legislative without public consent, preventing the legislature from assembling, changing electoral rules unilaterally, subjecting citizens to foreign power, or failing to enforce the laws all constitute fundamental breaches of the social contract. When rulers commit such violations, they effectively place themselves in a "state of war" with the people by using force without legitimate authority. The right of resistance derives directly from the natural right of self-preservation. Just as individuals in the state of nature may defend themselves against unjust aggression, citizens may resist rulers who systematically threaten their fundamental rights. When government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established—the protection of life, liberty, and property—the people retain the right to dissolve it and institute new guards for their security. Importantly, Locke distinguishes between resistance to particular unjust acts and revolution against an entire system. Minor grievances or isolated abuses do not justify overthrowing government. Only when there exists "a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way" that reveals a deliberate design to reduce the people to subjection does revolution become warranted. The threshold is high precisely because social stability itself represents a significant value. Locke also addresses the "appeal to heaven"—the ultimate judgment of God when no earthly authority can resolve a dispute between rulers and citizens about the proper use of power. Since no formal institution exists to adjudicate such fundamental conflicts within the political system itself, both sides must ultimately appeal to divine judgment through the practical course of events. This solemn appeal should not be made lightly, as it represents the dissolution of ordinary political bonds. Against critics who charge that this doctrine encourages frequent rebellion, Locke argues that people are naturally disposed to suffer many abuses before resorting to resistance. The risks and uncertainties of revolution ensure that only serious and systematic violations of trust will provoke such extreme measures. Far from promoting disorder, the recognition of a right to resistance serves as a powerful check against tyrannical tendencies in government.

Chapter 6: Dissolution of Government and the People's Sovereignty

Locke distinguishes carefully between the dissolution of society and the dissolution of government. While the former typically occurs only through foreign conquest or similar catastrophe, the latter may happen through various internal failures. This distinction underscores a foundational principle in Locke's theory: political society logically precedes and morally grounds particular governmental forms and personnel. Government dissolution occurs in several ways. When the legislative is altered without public consent—whether by executive usurpation, foreign interference, or internal corruption—the original constitutional arrangement collapses. Similarly, when those in authority actively prevent the legislature from meeting or functioning properly, they effectively dismantle the system of law-making that defines civil government. In each case, power reverts to the people, who regain their original right to constitute a new government. The dissolution of government does not necessarily entail chaos or the complete absence of authority. Rather, it represents a reversion to the community's fundamental power to determine its own political arrangements. As Locke explains, "the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject." This principle of popular sovereignty differs significantly from traditional notions of divine right or patriarchal authority. Power ultimately resides in the people themselves, not in particular persons or offices. The community retains the ultimate right to judge whether their trustees have fulfilled or betrayed their responsibilities. While ordinary governance proceeds through established institutions, extraordinary circumstances may necessitate direct popular action to preserve the fundamental ends of political society. Critics objected that this doctrine would produce instability and frequent rebellions. Locke counters that people are naturally conservative and reluctant to overturn established governments. Only when rulers demonstrate clear patterns of abuse that threaten the very foundations of civil society do people typically resort to resistance. The doctrine serves primarily as a warning to rulers about the consequences of systematic tyranny, not as an invitation to frivolous rebellion. In modern terms, Locke establishes what we might call constitutional sovereignty—the idea that ultimate political authority resides in the fundamental law establishing government rather than in any particular governmental institution. When government acts contrary to its constitutional purpose, it loses legitimacy regardless of its formal legal status. This principle has profoundly influenced subsequent democratic revolutions and constitutional systems worldwide.

Summary

Locke's theory represents a watershed in political philosophy by systematically grounding governmental legitimacy in consent rather than divine right or natural hierarchy. His insistence that political power must be limited, directed toward the public good, and respectful of fundamental natural rights established the intellectual foundation for constitutional democracy. By articulating both the moral basis for political obligation and the conditions under which that obligation ceases, he provides a balanced framework that recognizes both the necessity of government and the dangers of unchecked power. The enduring value of this framework lies in its nuanced understanding of the relationship between individual rights and collective authority. Locke acknowledges that effective government requires surrendering certain freedoms, yet insists this surrender remains conditional upon government fulfilling its proper ends. This perspective offers a powerful analytical lens for evaluating political institutions across different historical and cultural contexts. For thoughtful citizens concerned with the proper limits of governmental authority and the foundations of legitimate resistance to oppression, these arguments provide conceptual tools that remain remarkably relevant despite the centuries that have passed since their formulation.

About Author

Loading...

John Locke

Librarian 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.

Read more

Related Books by John Locke

Loading...

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

John Locke

Navigate the Landscape of the Mind

★★★½☆3.9