John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government stands as a cornerstone of modern political philosophy, providing the intellectual bedrock for concepts like natural rights, the social contract, and the right to revolution. Now, unlike his First Treatise, which refuted Sir Robert Filmer’s patriarchal arguments point by point, the Second Treatise offers a positive, constructive theory of political society. Published anonymously in 1689, this work was written to justify the Glorious Revolution and to systematically dismantle the doctrine of the divine right of kings. It moves from a hypothetical state of nature through the formation of civil government to the specific limits placed on legislative and executive power, arguing that legitimate authority derives solely from the consent of the governed That's the whole idea..
Some disagree here. Fair enough.
The State of Nature and Natural Law
Locke begins his analysis not with government, but with the state of nature. Contrary to Thomas Hobbes’s vision of a "war of all against all," Locke describes this pre-political condition as a state of perfect freedom and equality. In this state, individuals are free to order their actions and dispose of their possessions as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of nature That's the part that actually makes a difference..
Worth pausing on this one.
This law of nature is discoverable by reason. Still, Locke identifies a fatal inconvenience in this arrangement: men are biased judges in their own cases. Which means this means each person has the right to punish transgressors to preserve the rest of mankind. It teaches that because all humans are the workmanship of one omnipotent Maker, no one ought to harm another in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Passion and revenge often lead to excessive punishment, while self-interest leads to partiality. Worth adding: crucially, in the state of nature, every individual holds the executive power of the law of nature. This instability drives humanity to seek a more reliable arbiter Still holds up..
The State of War and the Right to Property
A critical distinction Locke draws is between the state of nature and the state of war. The state of war exists when one person declares, by word or action, a sedate, settled design upon another’s life. In the absence of a common judge, the innocent party has the right to destroy the aggressor, just as one would a wolf or a lion. This right extends to the right of self-preservation, which is the foundation of all other rights.
From this foundation springs Locke’s famous theory of property. Also, the mechanism of appropriation is labor. God gave the world to men in common, but reason dictates that individuals must appropriate resources to survive. Practically speaking, he argues that property exists prior to government. When a man mixes his labor with something removed from the common state—gathering acorns, picking apples, or tilling land—he makes it his property Simple, but easy to overlook..
Locke places two provisos on this acquisition, often called the Lockean Provisos:
- Which means The Spoilage Proviso: One may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils. 2. The Enough and As Good Proviso: There must be "enough, and as good" left in common for others.
The invention of money (durable, non-spoiling value) allows men to accumulate vast estates without violating the spoilage proviso, effectively tacitly agreeing to unequal possession. This development creates the need for established laws and judges to protect property, becoming a primary motivation for leaving the state of nature Less friction, more output..
The Social Contract and Political Society
To remedy the inconveniences of the state of nature—specifically the lack of a known law, a known indifferent judge, and an executive power to enforce judgments—men enter into a social contract. They agree to form a political society (or body politic) by unanimous consent. This is the only way a legitimate government can arise.
By this compact, individuals surrender their executive power of the law of nature to the community. They do not surrender their natural rights (life, liberty, estate); rather, they entrust the preservation of these rights to a legislative power. The community becomes the supreme power, but this power is not absolute. It is a fiduciary power—a trust placed in the legislature to act for the public good.
It sounds simple, but the gap is usually here.
Locke distinguishes between the dissolution of government and the dissolution of society. This leads to the society (the people) remains intact even if the government is overthrown. The people retain the supreme power to remove or alter the legislative when it acts contrary to its trust Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
The Structure and Limits of Government
Locke advocates for a separation of powers, though his model differs from the modern tripartite system. On top of that, he identifies three powers:
- Legislative: The supreme power, charged with making laws. It must govern by established standing laws, not arbitrary decrees. It cannot take property without consent (taxation requires representation). It cannot transfer its law-making power to others (delegata potestas non potest delegari).
- Executive: The power to enforce the laws continuously. Worth adding: because laws cannot foresee every circumstance, the executive holds prerogative—the power to act according to discretion for the public good where the law is silent or too rigid. 3. Federative: The power of managing foreign affairs (war, peace, leagues, alliances). Locke notes this is almost always united with the executive because both require the force of the community.
A vital check on the legislative is that it cannot be perpetual or arbitrary. That's why it must assemble at set times or when the executive calls it. If the legislative attempts to seize absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, it forfeits its authority And it works..
Tyranny, Usurpation, and the Right to Revolution
The most radical and influential section of the Second Treatise concerns the right to revolution. Locke defines tyranny as the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to—specifically, using power for the ruler's private advantage rather than the public good. Usurpation is the exercise of power which another has a right to Simple as that..
When the legislative is altered or acts contrary to its trust—such as invading the property of the subject, reducing the people to slavery, or delivering the people into the power of a foreign nation—the government is dissolved. The power reverts to the people, who are then free to provide for their own safety by establishing a new legislative.
Locke anticipates the objection that this doctrine invites constant rebellion. So he counters that people are not easily roused from their "old forms" and will suffer a "long train of abuses" before acting. But revolution is not a right for every minor maladministration but a last resort against a systematic design to subvert the constitution. Which means the judge of whether the trust has been violated is ultimately the people themselves, for "who shall be judge whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? The people shall be judge.
The Dissolution of Government
Locke outlines specific scenarios where government is dissolved:
- From without: Conquest by a foreign power.
Worth adding: * When the legislative acts contrary to its trust (invading property/liberty). , the prince sets up his own arbitrary will as law, prevents the legislative from assembling, or alters the electors/methods of election without consent).
Which means * When the executive neglects his duty (laws not enforced, leading to anarchy). g.* From within:
- When the legislative is altered (e.* When the delivery of the people to a foreign power occurs.
In all these cases, the compact between ruler and ruled is broken. The people are absolved from obedience and return to the liberty of establishing a new government.
Enduring Legacy and Significance
The Second Treatise of Civil Government is more than a historical artifact; it is a living document that shaped the modern world.
