If you’ve ever felt like the government is overstepping its bounds, you’re basically channeling a guy from the 1600s who had to flee his own country just to stay alive. John Locke wasn’t just some dusty academic. He was a revolutionary in a wig. When he published Two Treatises of Government, he wasn’t trying to write a textbook; he was trying to justify why a king shouldn't have the power to ruin your life on a whim.
It’s wild.
Most people think of the "social contract" as this high-brow, abstract concept. Honestly, for Locke, it was a practical tool for survival. He wrote these papers during a time of massive political upheaval in England—the Exclusion Crisis and the lead-up to the Glorious Revolution. He was basically saying that if a leader turns into a tyrant, you don't just have the right to kick them out; you have an obligation.
The First Treatise: Debunking the "God Said So" Argument
Before we get to the good stuff about liberty and property, we have to talk about the First Treatise. It’s the part everyone skips in college because it’s mostly Locke arguing with a guy named Sir Robert Filmer. Filmer had written a book called Patriarcha, which argued that kings were direct descendants of Adam and therefore had a "divine right" to rule.
Locke thought this was ridiculous.
He spends the entire First Treatise systematically dismantling the idea that God gave any one person absolute authority over others. He uses logic that feels surprisingly modern. He asks: If the king's power comes from Adam, who is the rightful heir today? Since nobody can actually prove their lineage back to the first man, the whole "divine right" thing falls apart. It’s a total takedown of religious authoritarianism. He argued that we are all born "equal and independent." No one is born with a saddle on their back, and no one is born with spurs to ride them.
The State of Nature and the Second Treatise
This is where Two Treatises of Government gets famous. Locke asks us to imagine a world without any government at all. He calls this the "State of Nature." Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who thought life without a king would be "nasty, brutish, and short," Locke had a slightly more optimistic—but still realistic—view.
✨ Don't miss: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
He believed that even without laws, humans are governed by "Natural Law." Basically, you know it's wrong to kill people or steal their stuff. But there's a problem. In the State of Nature, if someone steals your cow, you’re the judge, the jury, and the executioner. That’s messy. People are biased. They overreact.
So, we create government.
We trade a little bit of our total freedom for the security of a neutral judge. That’s the social contract in a nutshell. You give up the right to take revenge yourself, and in exchange, the state protects your life, liberty, and property.
Life, Liberty, and... Property?
You’ve probably heard the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson actually cribbed that directly from Locke, but Locke used the word "Property."
Locke’s theory of property is fascinating. He argued that the world was given to all of us in common, but when you mix your labor with something, it becomes yours. If you pick an apple from a tree, that apple is now yours because you put in the work to get it. This "Labor Theory of Property" is the bedrock of modern capitalism.
But there’s a catch. Locke added what we now call the "Lockean Proviso." You can only claim property if there is "enough, and as good, left in common for others." You can’t just fence off the only water hole in the desert and call it yours. That's a nuance that gets lost in a lot of political debates today.
🔗 Read more: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
Why Locke’s Theory of Consent Changes Everything
The most radical thing about Two Treatises of Government is the idea of "consent of the governed." This was a massive shift. Before Locke, the power flowed from the top down. After Locke, the power flowed from the bottom up.
The government only exists because we say it does.
- Tacit Consent: Even if you didn't sign a literal contract, Locke argues that by using the roads, enjoying the protection of the police, or owning land, you are giving "tacit consent" to the government.
- The Right to Revolution: This is the big one. If the government stops protecting your rights—or worse, starts violating them—the contract is void. At that point, the people have the right to "appeal to heaven" (which was 17th-century code for picking up a musket).
Locke didn't want constant chaos. He argued that people are actually pretty slow to revolt. They’ll put up with a lot of "mischief" before they finally snap. But once a government shows a "long train of abuses," it’s game over.
The Darker Side of the Legacy
We have to be real here. While Locke was writing about "all men" being equal, he was also an investor in the Royal African Company, which was involved in the slave trade. He also helped write the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which included provisions for slavery.
It’s a massive contradiction.
Some historians argue that Locke’s ideas about property were used to justify taking land from Indigenous peoples in the Americas. Since they weren't "improving" the land in the European sense (fencing it in, intensive farming), Locke’s theory suggested the land was "waste" and up for grabs. Understanding Locke means grappling with the fact that these beautiful ideas about freedom were often applied very selectively.
💡 You might also like: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
How to Apply Lockean Logic Today
So, what do you actually do with this? Reading Locke isn't just for passing a political science exam. It gives you a framework for evaluating the world around you right now.
Watch for overreach. Whenever a new law is passed, ask yourself: Does this protect my life, liberty, or property, or is it just the state flexing its muscles? Locke would tell you that any law that doesn't serve the public good is technically illegitimate.
Understand your "Property" includes yourself. For Locke, the most fundamental piece of property you own is your own body. Your "person." This has massive implications for modern debates on everything from data privacy to medical autonomy. If you don't own your own person, you don't own anything.
Value the rule of law over the rule of men. Locke’s whole point was to move away from the "whims" of a leader. If the rules aren't known, stable, and applied equally to everyone, you aren't living in a civil society; you're living in a state of war.
Check the "Lockean Proviso" in your own life. In a world of finite resources, how much is "enough and as good" for everyone else? It’s a great lens for looking at environmental issues or wealth inequality. It’s not just about what you can take; it’s about what you leave behind for the next person.
If you want to dive deeper, don't just read summaries. Go find a copy of the Second Treatise of Government. It’s surprisingly readable for something written over 300 years ago. You’ll see the DNA of the modern world in every chapter.
Actionable Next Steps:
- Audit your digital "property": Think about your personal data through Locke’s lens. If you "mixed your labor" to create that content or data, do you actually own it, or has the "social contract" of the internet stripped that from you?
- Read the Declaration of Independence again: Look for the specific phrases where Jefferson basically plagiarized Locke. It will give you a much deeper appreciation for the foundations of Western democracy.
- Evaluate local policies: Next time your local government makes a decision, ask if it meets Locke's criteria for a "neutral judge" or if it's acting as a "party in its own case." This is the quickest way to spot institutional bias.