The catchy full title of the Two Treatises of Government is 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.
The first half is an attack on Robert Filmer’s book Patriarcha which was a defence of hereditary monarchy and the divine right of Kings and the idea that they should have absolute power.
In the second half, Locke builds a justification for government the influence of which can still be felt today.
Like Hobbes and others Locke thought that we must derive our understanding of political power from its origins in the state of nature. Locke's vision was much more positive, however.
To understand political power aright, and derive from it its original, we must consider what estate 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.
Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 4In that state of nature Human beings have natural rights; those rights are life, liberty, and possessions:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 6What does he mean by our possessions? What is our property? What is it that we can possess? What do we have a right to? Locke's conception of property was wrapped up with work, with labour - we own what we have worked for and on.
Though the earth, and all inferiour creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
— John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, § 27He didn't, however, think that people should not hoard wealth. This, he thought, was clear in the past when the fruits of our labour were perishable, but things became a bit more complicated with the invention of money. Money enables people to own things without working for them - it enables people to inherit wealth. Locke was suspicious of this because it is an idea that is closely related to the idea of a hereditary monarchy and the divine right of Kings.
And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselesly in his Possession, these he also made use of.
In a state of nature, those rights are improperly protected, so we should give up a bit of our liberty in order to protect these natural rights.
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
(2nd Tr., § 123)We cannot mention Locke’s political philosophy without mentioning his discussion of slavery.
Firstly, Locke authored The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), which explicitly supported hereditary nobility and slavery: ‘Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves …’
Second, they show that Locke owned stock in the Royal African Company, which ran the African slave trade for England.
Some argue, however, that Locke was just a Clerk - a lawyer drafting something on behalf of the king and company owners. Within two years, Locke stopped cooperating with the king and his policies. And in July 1675, Locke sold his stock in the Royal African Company, and Shaftesbury quickly followed.
Also, Locke seems to explicitly argue against slavery in his Two Treatise of Government.
Locke’s First Treatise begins: 'Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation; that 'tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a Gentleman, should plead for't.'
In the second Treatise, he argues that…
Given that Government should be based on the consent of the governed (not divine right or hereditary privilege), so too should Labour also be based on consent.
Given that human beings do not have absolute and arbitrary power over themselves (because they belong to God) they cannot sell or grant it to someone else.
∴ Slavery cannot come about as a matter of contract
Locke argued that slavery could only possibly be allowed as a punishment for a terrible crime for which someone could justifiably be executed.
Explain Locke's argument:
his vision of the State of Nature
What natural rights did Locke think that we have.
Explain Locke's conception of property
What was the justification for the power of the government according to Locke?
Give one objection to Locke's argument.
Evaluate Locke's vision of government