Two Treatises of Government
This presentation discusses the life of John Locke, the evolution of his ideas, and the political conflicts in 17th Century England which led to the writing of Two Treatises of Government. The famous Second Treatise, which contains Locke's central ideas on rights, government, and revolution, is examined in detail. Special attention is given to Locke's theory of private property, which has influenced law and government for over two centuries.
Stats for nerds
4recommend
18mentions
16people
2011–2025years
22% recommend78% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Here's my promised list (note it's only a rough guide). As mentioned, I couldn't post earlier versions as they were too big. Even this new rehash (which was already rehashed from much older posts) is too big, so I'll post the first two thirds now and the remainder later. What's missing (compared to my initial attempt) are large sections of my commentary. For additional details use Wiki (these books are well known, hence they all should have entries). Most are out of copyright so you can download them from the I.A. (Internet Archive).
1. The Republic (Book 1 only)—Plato Begin study here; it's an excellent intro to formal argument (v. important), as it's the basis of arguing things out in logical ways. It's a dialogue between the philosopher Socrates and a sophist Thrasymachus about the meaning of justice. It's also fun to read, watching Socrates demolish Thrasymachus' selfish stance of 'every-man-for-himself' in logical sequence is like watching a chess game between a master and a cocky arrogant rookie. The book's passed the test of time, it's still in print nearly two half millennia after it was written. Use Jowett's translation, 1892 ed will do. Jowet's info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jowett
2. Last Days of Socrates—Plato (Read only if you've time.) It's important in the grand scheme of Greek philosophy and the fact that Plato was affected by the execution of Socrates (his teacher).
3. Nicomachean Ethics—Aristotle (Likely too long now but essential later). Any Aristotle text is worthy of study, he's a giant in the field, his influence is still stamped all over Western culture today. Phil. is incomplete without studying him. The book's deals with ethics and how people should live their lives.
4. Meditations on First Philosophy, & etc.—René Descartes Very influential book. Initially, just read Discourse on the Method, it's about finding the truth, especially the sciences. Here, you'll find the famous phrase "I think therefore I exist/am". It also turns up in the 'related' Principles of Philosophy as Cogito, ergo sum. If you advance further, you'll be taught about breakdowns in reasoning/faulty logic and Descartes isn't immune to them either. One of his logical steps is a misstep and is famous for it—no, I won't tell you what its is.
5. Sir Francis Bacon—Rather than give specific references just get his collected essays (they're all short), select any relevant tiles to read.
6. The Leviathan—Thomas Hobbes. Herein Hobbes addresses statecraft, society, civil power government (actually very important). Written in the aftermath of the English Civil War when such matters were still raw and fluid. BTW, our modern understanding of the word commonwealth comes from Hobbes, the book's full title is: Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil.
7 & 8. Two Treatises of Government | An Essay Concerning Human Understanding—John Locke Locke is an English empiricist Enlightenment philosopher, his ideas had a strong influence on governance structures in the U.S. Locke was an early epistemologist, so his words are well chosen and noted for the fact. He had a very influential effect on later philosophers. The Two Treatises of Government deals with civil society, one's rights, property and contracts. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding deals with empiricism, fundamental ideas, innate concepts and notions such as 'color', 'good' etc. Locke had a great influence on philosophers such as Hume, Kant, Berkeley, Moore and many others.
9. The Prince—Niccolò Machiavelli He gets a bad press although he doesn't deserve it. It's questionable that he was truly 'Machiavellian' himself. Simply, The Prince is sound practical (worldly) advice to a prince about how to conduct oneself and how not be screwed by one's enemies (be wary/aware of likely enemies, avoid situations that could lead to one's dethronement). It's a very short book, just a few hours to read.
10 & 11. On Liberty | Utilitarianism—John Stuart Mill. Both books were highly influential and still are. On liberty deals with a theory of liberty—re liberty itself, also concerning political rulers, tyrants and tyranny. Utilitarianism is about utility, the notion of the greatest good for the greatest number, it still underpins the philosophy behind the running of most modern cities/states today.
12, 13 & 14. A Treatise of Human Nature | An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding | An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals—David Hume It is impossible [I almost said 'almost'] to cover these works in a couple of sentences, so I won't. At least you should know about them and what they are about. Hume is a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher and much more. His works are uncannily modern and prescient nearly 300 years after they were written. He's hugely relevant to philosophy, science and culture in general; a true giant in the field. Like Locke, he was not a believer in innate ideas but rather that they come from experience (like George Berkeley's Tree in the quad arguments). He's the principle founder of philosophical induction and much more.
15. The Social Contract—Jean-Jacques Rousseau This is a great work (and fun to read). The most famous opening sentence of any philosophical work likely ever written, ancient or modern, is at the very beginning of Chapter 1: L'Homme eft né libre, and par-tout il eft dans les fers.—Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Words of great influence and they were in fact so. Those words were much the truth in 1762 and they're still pretty much true nowadays (unfortunately)!
Frontispiece: https://archive.org/details/jducontractsocia00rous/page/n7/m...
Chapter 1: https://archive.org/details/jducontractsocia00rous/page/2/mo...
It's Rousseau's most famous work. He discusses political society and conjectures all people will be free if everyone equally gives up certain rights then all accept the responsibility and obligation thrust upon them in equal measure for their own collective governance. Here, he posits the notion of the The General Will of the Citizenry, it's this that should drive legislative government. The General Will should always hold government to account, especially when it exceeds authority or legitimacy. The Social Contract was revolutionary at the time (1762), only 27 years later the French Revolution took place and Rousseau's ideas, at least in part, were influential in causing the foment that led up to it. It changed governance for the better and today we're its beneficiaries (at least so in democracies).
16. Critique of Pure Reason—Emmanuel Kant I'm hesitant to mention Kant because he can be so obscure. The trouble is that he's so influential. Kant deals with knowledge, reason, human reasoning, and empirical reason. One cannot ignore Kant or does so at his/her peril, (perhaps this book is better left until you've a fuller grasp of the subject).
17. Principia Ethica—G. E. Moore (George Edward) Prof of Phil., Cambridge, UK at turn of the 20th Century. Since it was published in 1903 Principia Ethica has had a huge influence on philosophers and still does (incl. yours truly, it was one of my early texts). ;-) It deals with the notion that certain ideas and concepts cannot reduced into simpler terms because they're already irreducible. 'Good' or 'bad' can't be reduced further as we've no way of measuring them. We know/learn what 'good' means intrinsically, so too 'very good' but we cannot measure the amount of 'good', nor can we measure how much 'very' adds to it. Here's another case: normal sighted people and those who've gone blind later in life know the colour 'yellow' as they've physically seen and perceived it, but no amount of trying will convey that perceived notion to a person blind from birth (they'll learn a conceptual understanding but can't actually perceive color as the sighted do). There's much more to Moore too: moral philosophy, etc. He was a trendsetter for much of 20th C. philosophy.
18. The Problems of Philosophy—Bertrand Russell Russell was one of the last great polymaths and a social reformer, philosopher, logician and much more (I remember him on TV when a kid). The Book discusses past philosophical problems and equates/restates them in his terms. He questions, discusses, countenances and argues over subjects such as 'what we can actually prove', 'what are causal relationships', 'what is knowledge and validation', 'what is their relationship or relative importance when considered along side metaphysics'. He further develops ideas that began (first logically codified) with Locke (or even Bacon) and continued through to Hume, Berkeley etc. He discusses the important notion of the 'sense datum' (along with G.E. Moore, A.J. Ayer, etc.).
Note: 'The Problems of Philosophy' is only a little book but you are rather unlikely to digest it in just one sitting!
I'd strongly recommend both Principia Ethica and The Problems of Philosophy to those studying Quantum Physics, as they deal with what is real and what we know about real things—and things that are seemingly ephemeral but are in fact real (e.g.: zero point energy, virtual particles, potentials). Grasping Russell's solid logic also gives us the mindset to tackle the 'awkward' practice—the philosophically worrying 'logic'—of renormalization and perturbation theory (Yang-Mills etc.) in Quantum Field Theory/QFT and its sibling Quantum Electrodynamics/QED.
(Items 19 through 22 to follow.)
- An incomplete but useful list of classics might be the list following. You may wish to start with wikipedia entries on them, or other sources, but reading the texts themselves is useful!
Plato: The Republic
Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics; and Politics
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan John Locke: Two Treatises of Government
Rousseau: The Social Contract
Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws De Toqueville: Democracy in America
Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto; and Das Kapital.
JS Mill: On Liberty (the classic Utilitarian Enlightenment work)
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice (A hugely important work on rights and principles of political decisionmaking)
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia (a right-wing / libertarian oriented response to Rawls)
Michael Sandel: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (critique of liberalism and introducing communitarianism)
- These are important books but obviously not a comprehensive list.
* John Locke's Two Treatises of Government - It's political philosophy but it's hard to understand Classical Liberalism without having read some Locke.
* Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations - He and Locke are the two main guys to read for a solid start on Classical Liberalism, which is completely different than modern political liberalism. It's like having two features in an app with nearly the same name. Confusing as fuck.
* E. F. Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered - This book will shift your perspective, useful to avoid becoming an a mindless advocate for one school of thought or another.
* Marx is a tough one as Capital is massive and unreadable and The Communist Manifesto is a propaganda pamphlet but I think you need to at least find some articles that summarize the basics.
* Keynes and Hayek - This hip hop battle is a decent start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk then read Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
* Milton Friedman's - Yes, read Capitalism and Freedom. I hesitated to include it as the guy's so good at making the case that it can turn you into a market advocate bot. Please resist that.
Can someone help me on this, is there a book balance Hayek and a book to balance Friedman? I'm sorry but Keynes doesn't do it for me. Look at the difference in titles between Hayek and Keynes. It's hard to motivate to read the Keynes book but nobody ever has trouble reading Hayek.
I see a lot of these ideas come up on HN a lot. What I don't like so much is when someone becomes an advocate for a particular ism. To me, all isms are rubbish. All of them. Understand but do not become a shill for an ideology.
- > Do you believe in property rights?
Not the OP, but I think a lot more people nowadays should read (or re-read) Locke's "Two Treatises of Government". That book is famous mostly for the second part, where Locke actually intellectually imposes private property as a thing in the Western world, but I found the first part equally interesting, where Locke fights against a guy called Filmer, who was of the opinion (prevalent until then) that all property was rightfully owned by the King, transferred to him from generations past since Adam.
The thing I'm trying to say is that yes, private property is just a social construct, there's no divine nor moral thing about it, the concept came alive (so to speak) only because some guys in England didn't like that their possessions were in danger of being confiscated by the King's men.
In the end private property is indeed theft, more exactly the imposition of someone's moral values over the other's by intrinsic force (if you "steal" you might go to prison or worst). The sooner we realize this the better, there's no second-guessing about it.
- I was mostly responding to the second part of your statement, "[i]t sounds like an 'appeal to authority' of the small government crowd." It is very difficult to find statements from historical figures, especially philosophers, that speak to modern debates. The context in which they developed their theories were quite different and don't always map one-to-one with the modern day.
“Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” -- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." -- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
Without really reading his two treatises on government those quotes are not very enlightening I'm afraid. The only way to really understand the philosophical core of the US is to read the writings that influenced the founding generation. So my "evidence" is their body of work; apologies for not being able to be more succinct than that.
> For a short comment on HN, it's safe to say 'It was meant to be a democracy'.
This is a topic that was covered by the founders so I can pretty easily provide quotes here.
"I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either." -- John Adams, Letter to John Taylor
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty." -- John Adams, Letter to John Taylor
"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, New York speech
"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. Those who mean to form a solid republican government, ought to proceed to the confinges of another government. As long as offices are open to all men, and no constitutional rank is established, it is pure republicanism. But if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy." -- Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention 1787
"A pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 10
Many of the founders, despite the above quotes, thought more direct style democracy and civic engagement was valuable in very local contexts rather than federally. Tocqueville wrote about this in "Democracy in America". Republicanism (representative democracy) at the national level was thought to be much preferable to (direct) democracy but also had constitutional limits placed on it due to its shortcomings as I mentioned before, e.g. no bills of attainder, protection of habeas corpus, prohibitions against ex post facto laws, the Bill of Rights (expressed as limitations on government), enumerated powers, checks and balances, etc...
I like to point to "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger Dijkstra in this situation. Dijkstra was discussing unrestricted goto statements in much older languages like Algol, something which doesn't exist in any language in use today that I'm aware of. It was also never an absolute "ban" on the unrestricted goto. Yet the lesson that was learned was to never use restricted goto (e.g. C). The issue Dijkstra was concerned with was something we are still concerned with; clean, maintainable code. If we take the simplified conclusion that most people have internalized then the Linux kernel's error handling and resource clean-up would likely be far less maintainable than their current judicious use of goto for that purpose.
Similarly we are still debating what effective governance looks like today. By simplifying the founders thoughts on the matter we obfuscate the problem they were trying to solve and deny ourselves past insight into the problems we are trying to solve.
- — We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
(https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... the US Declaration of Independence, expressing the motivation for independence from Europe)
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, (...)
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order which is independent of transitory human laws or traditions.
Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law, although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas.
The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.
Some of the early Church fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke.
In the Seventeenth Century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor.
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology.
John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.
The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.
The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies_of_h...
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights. (...)
Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of human rights derives from theories of natural rights. Those rejecting a distinction between human rights and natural rights view human rights as the successor that is not dependent on natural law, natural theology, or Christian theological doctrine. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
more generally, though, the idea that good and evil can exist independently of law is foundational to most philosophical systems; if you reject that, you necessarily reject that laws can be evil in ways that go beyond mere internal inconsistency
though they are not based on conceptions of individual rights, taoism, confucianism, and almost any kind of theism posit a moral authority that is higher than any human law and can therefore condemn it
