If you’ve ever felt like the government is overstepping its bounds, you’re basically echoing a guy from the 1600s who had to hide in the Netherlands just to keep his head. John Locke wasn't just some dusty academic. He was a revolutionary in a wig. When he wrote John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, he wasn't trying to win a book award. He was trying to justify a literal regime change.
It’s wild how much we take his ideas for granted now. You wake up, you own your phone, you say what you want on social media, and you expect the police not to kick down your door without a reason. That entire "vibe" of modern life? That’s Locke. Before him, the standard logic was that kings were chosen by God. If the King was a jerk, that was just God testing your patience. Locke basically looked at that and said, "Actually, no."
The First Treatise: Debunking the "Divine Right"
Most people skip the First Treatise. Honestly, it’s a bit of a slog because it’s a page-by-page takedown of a guy named Robert Filmer. Filmer wrote this book called Patriarcha, arguing that kings were the direct heirs of Adam from the Bible.
Locke spent hundreds of pages pointing out how ridiculous that was. He used logic like a scalpel. He asked: If we’re all descended from Adam, aren't we all technically kings? Who has the genealogy to prove they are the "rightful" heir of a biblical figure? It’s snarky, intellectual, and totally necessary. He had to clear the deck of old superstitions before he could build something new. He knew you couldn't talk about freedom until you killed the idea that some people are born to be masters and others are born to be boots.
The State of Nature: It's Not a Purge
Then we get to the Second Treatise. This is the juicy stuff. Locke starts by imagining humans in a "State of Nature."
Now, Thomas Hobbes—another famous philosopher—thought the State of Nature was a nightmare. He famously called it "nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes thought that without a scary king to keep us in line, we’d all just murder each other for a sandwich. Locke was more optimistic. He thought humans were generally capable of reason. In Locke’s view, the State of Nature wasn't a war zone; it was just a place where there was no one to settle disputes.
💡 You might also like: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
He believed we have "Natural Rights" that don't come from a government. They come from being human. These are Life, Liberty, and Property. Sound familiar? Thomas Jefferson basically "copy-pasted" this into the Declaration of Independence, though he swapped "Property" for "Pursuit of Happiness" to make it sound a bit more poetic.
Why Property is the Core of Everything
Locke had this fascinating idea about how you actually own things. It’s called the Labor Theory of Property.
Think about a wild apple tree. Who owns the apples? According to Locke, the moment you pick an apple, you’ve mixed your labor with it. That act of "mixing" makes it yours. It’s a very blue-collar way of looking at the world. He argued that the world was given to us in common, but our bodies belong to us exclusively. Therefore, the work our bodies do creates private ownership.
But there’s a catch. He called it the "Lockean Proviso." You can take as much as you want as long as there is "enough and as good" left for others. You can't hoard all the water in a desert and let everyone else die of thirst. That’s where the nuance kicks in. Locke wasn't advocating for greed; he was advocating for the right to the fruits of your own hustle.
The Social Contract: You're Hiring the Government
So, if the State of Nature is okay, why do we need a government at all?
📖 Related: How Old is CHRR? What People Get Wrong About the Ohio State Research Giant
Because of that one guy who steals your apples.
Locke says we enter a Social Contract. We voluntarily give up a little bit of our freedom—specifically the right to punish people ourselves—and hand that power to the state. But—and this is the massive "but" that changed the world—the government only exists as a "trustee."
Imagine you hire a contractor to fix your roof. If they start stealing your furniture instead, you fire them. Locke said the government is the contractor. If the government stops protecting your life, liberty, and property, the contract is void. You don't just have the right to revolt; you have an obligation to.
The Right to Revolution
This was dangerous stuff. In 1689, suggesting you could overthrow a king was essentially treason. But Locke argued that a ruler who becomes a tyrant puts himself into a "State of War" with the people. Since he broke the rules first, the people are just defending themselves when they kick him out.
This isn't just theory. It was the intellectual engine for the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and basically every modern democracy. When you see protestors in the streets today, they are operating on Lockean logic. They are saying the "trust" has been broken.
👉 See also: The Yogurt Shop Murders Location: What Actually Stands There Today
What Most People Get Wrong
People often paint Locke as this pure, saintly figure of liberty. But history is messy. While he wrote about equality and natural rights, he also had investments 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 glaring contradiction. How can the "Father of Liberalism" reconcile "all men are free" with the reality of 17th-century chattel slavery? Some scholars, like James Farr, argue Locke was trapped in the economic realities of his time, while others, like Barbara Arneil, point out that his theories on property were used to justify taking land from Indigenous peoples in America.
We have to sit with that. You can love the ideas while acknowledging the man failed to live up to them. That’s the nuance of history. It doesn't mean the Second Treatise is "wrong," but it means we have to apply his logic more universally than he did.
Practical Insights for Today
So, what do you actually do with this? John Locke's Two Treatises of Government isn't just for a political science exam. It’s a framework for evaluating the world around you.
- Question Authority: If a law is passed, ask: Does this protect my life, liberty, or property? Or is it just the state flexing its muscles?
- Ownership Matters: Locke’s focus on property reminds us that economic independence is a huge part of personal freedom. If you don't own your labor, you aren't fully free.
- Consent is Key: We often forget that government legitimacy comes from us. If the "contract" feels lopsided, it’s worth asking why we’re still signing it.
Next Steps for the Curious
If you want to really get into the weeds, don't just read summaries. Go straight to the source. Start with Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise (the one on property). It’s the most influential part of the whole book. After that, look up the English Bill of Rights of 1689. You’ll see Locke’s fingerprints all over it.
Compare his work to The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. It’s the ultimate "who would win" debate of philosophy. Hobbes wants order at any cost; Locke wants liberty even if it’s a bit messy. Decide which side of that fence you sit on. Most of our modern political debates are just us arguing about that exact same thing over and over again.