Second Treatise of Government

A little about the book

John Locke asks what could make one person’s political authority over another legitimate. His argument begins by imagining human beings outside established government, then examines the rights, obligations, and practical difficulties that would bring them into a political community. Questions about property, labor, punishment, and consent become parts of an inquiry into the purposes for which people might agree to give public institutions power over their lives.

The treatise does not assume that the existence of authority settles the question of how it may be used. Locke considers the responsibilities of lawmakers, the distinction between kinds of power, and the circumstances in which government can cease to fulfill its trust. Readers encounter a sustained argument rather than a sequence of historical examples, so the relationships between definitions matter. Its central concern is the boundary between rule undertaken for a community’s preservation and domination exercised for a ruler’s advantage, a distinction that gives the work much of its lasting political force.

Things You May Not Know About Second Treatise of Government

• The second of two treatises. The original paired work first attacks arguments for inherited paternal authority, while this second treatise develops Locke’s account of legitimate civil government.
• A title-page date needs context. Two Treatises was published anonymously in 1689 with a 1690 title-page date, a distinction that explains differing dates in references.
• Property is a sustained question. Locke devotes an entire chapter to property, connecting the use of labor with his larger account of rights and political society.
• Consent is not merely decorative. The argument treats consent as part of the explanation of political membership and authority, rather than just a useful slogan for rulers.
• The ending examines dissolution. The final chapter asks how government can break down or lose its trust, giving resistance a place within the work’s systematic argument.