Revitalized Reading Podcast
Revitalized Reading Podcast
Book Review: Two Treatises of Government by John Locke (Ep.18)
Are you someone who enjoys political philosophy and government, or the origins of the Western political world? If the answer is yes to either of those, you'll absolutely enjoy this episode. Join me as I go through the incredible and historic 17th century work, 'Two Treatises of Government' by John Locke.
Works Cited:
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/364550.Two_Treatises_of_Government?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=HxewWfkWz0&rank=1
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
- https://iep.utm.edu/locke/
Facebook page link:
https://www.facebook.com/Revitalized-Reading-Podcast-111048961616617/?
Facebook Group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/748791266551958
Instagram:
revitalizedreadingpodcast
Music: On Hold for You by Kevin MacLeod | https://incompetech.com/
Music promoted by https://www.chosic.com/free-music/all/
Creative Commons Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Hello everyone, my name is Josh and I am your host for the Revitalized Reading Podcast. For today’s episode, I will be reviewing ‘Two Treatises of Government’ by John Locke. Let’s get this thing started. The edition of the book that I used was from ‘Rethinking the Western Tradition’ which was edited by Ian Shapiro, and published in 2003. This edition also includes Locke’s ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ which is a fascinating read, but won’t be part of my review today since its an entirely different book. This edition of ‘Two Treatises of Government’ is 209 pages long. Here is the synopsis found on the back of the book, I’ve omitted a few parts that were pertaining to A Letter Concerning Toleration to save time. “Among the most influential writings in the history of western political thought, John Lockes Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration remain vital to political debates today, more than three centuries after they were written. The complete texts appear in this volume, accompanied by interpretive essays by three prominent Locke Scholars. In the Two treatises, Locke provides a theory of natural law and natural rights which he uses to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate civil governments. With these and other writings, Lockes impact on the political theory and philosophy of the early enlightenment was monumental, and he stood as a central figure invoked by leaders of the American Revolution.” Let me share a little more with you regarding this books history, and the context of its origin. ‘Two Treatises of Government’ was published in a very unique and tense time in history of England. The treatises were published anonymously in 1689, on the heels of the ‘Glorious Revolution’. The ‘Glorious Revolution’ is way too complex for me too explain in this podcast, but here is the brief the overview. King James II was overthrown by Parliamentarians (people who wanted the parliament to have equal power and prevalence in English political disputes), and was replaced by William III or William of Orange, who ruled jointly with Mary II. This was a significant occasion, and was a victory for Parliamentarians, and Protestants, as both rulers were Protestant. Locke, the author of Two Treatises, was one of the supporters of the Revolution. Due to the still dangerous and contentious atmosphere, he would publish this book anonymously. The history of our Author, John Locke is equally intriguing. John Locke was Born on August 29th 1632 in Somerset England. Raised by a relatively wealthy and prestigious family, he would be sent to the Westminster School in London, where he would show his intelligence and skills in math, science, and philosophy. In 1652, Locke would be admitted to Christ Church, a constituent college to Oxford. There he would be introduced to medicine and experimental philosophy, kickstarting the two things that would become his career, and eventually legacy. In 1667, Locke would impress Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, with his medicinal prowess. Locke would be hired on as Lord Ashley’s personal physician. Locke would be instrumental in persuading Lord Ashley to have surgery to remove a cyst from his Liver, not only did Ashley survive the operation, but would prosper until the last months of his life. He credited Locke for saving his life. Locke’s life in England would be put on hold, when he was suspected of plotting with others to assassinate King Charles II in 1683. Locke would flee to the Netherlands, and stay there until 1689. There is very little historical evidence to suggest Locke was part of the plot by the way. After his return to England in 1689, Locke would continue his work as a physician, all while writing multiple books. On top of Two Treatises of Government, and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke would also write An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Some thoughts Concerning Education, and The Reasonableness of Christianity. Locke has sometimes been described as the first ‘classical liberal’, this is because of the many political ideas and theories he proposed that promoted Liberty of thought, speech, worship, and life. Some of these ideas included an early idea of the separation of church and state, the purpose of government in protecting life, liberty, and property, and the separation of powers withing government. Locke would pass away at the age of 72 in 1704. There is so much more I could share about this incredible philosopher and author, but I can’t. So I highly encourage you to learn more about him and his ideas that impact our world today. As the title of the book suggests, ‘Two Treatises of government’ are two separate treatises, a treatise is a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject. So I’ll give a summary of each treatise separate from one another, because even though both pertain to government, they cover very different subjects. So let me begin with the First Treatise. The first treatise is a direct response to Sir Robert Filmers book ‘Patriarcha’, which posited that God instituted a hereditary absolute monarchy through Adam, and that authority was given to Adam through his ‘ownership’ of the world. Through many scriptures in the Old and New Testament, Locke dismantles the idea that the scriptures show this supposed Hereditary, Absolute Monarchy. Locke proceeds to equally tear apart the idea of the divine right of Kings, which suggests Kings receive their authority and rule through God, and no other means. This particular idea would be brought up again in Locke’s second treatise. This is a rudimentary explanation of the First Treatise, but these were the basic points that were touched on. The Second treatise is the longer of the two, and covers a much more broad set of topics pertaining to government. Rather than being directed at any one entity like the first treatise, the second was for any audience wanting to understand more about the role and origin of government. The first subject Locke explores, is the State of Nature and the Law of Nature. Locke describes the State of Nature as a perfect freedom to do and act and as one pleases with his life and freedom, and all are equal in this state. The Law of Nature is something outside of humanity, that all mankind is subject to. This law governs the state of Nature, and it teaches men that they shouldn’t harm another mans life, liberty, or property. Two other topics that Locke then begins to touch on as they relate to Government, is Conquest and Slavery. Locke shares that slavery is outside the law of Nature. What he means, is that no man can enslave himself, or others, because God has made all men free naturally. Unless God revokes that freedom, men cannot take it from themselves or others without such permission. Locke suggests that being subjected to a ruler who claims absolute authority outside of the societies consent, is akin to being enslaved. Locke then shares how conquest through warfare, does not, and cannot justify the rule of the conquerors. The people of society must give their approval or disapproval for the governors or rulers they have. Both of these ideas were quite revolutionary for the time, and probably played a part in Locke wanting to remain anonymous while calling out former conquering monarchs. Locke brought up property earlier when speaking about the law of Nature, and he dedicates an entire section of the second treatise to explaining what it is, and why it is worthy of defense. Property is what a man or woman has acquired through his own labor or the fruit of his labor, money. Property can be land, a horse, his clothes, the trees in his fields, and anything else in his realm or jurisdiction. Locke suggests that a man has the right to defend himself for his life, his liberty, or his property. In the state of nature, a mans property is in constant danger from those who wish to steal, damage, or otherwise desecrate what he has. While a man has a right to defend his property, it is easier to give up some of his freedom, to have a government that he consented to, to defend that property, and hold responsible those who destroy or steal a mans property. This idea suggests that all men are rulers over the property they have acquired, and it is one of governments sole purposes to defend that property. Locke goes on to speak on what we now call representative government. Locke talks about how a governments legitimacy is based entirely upon whether or not it was agreed upon by the majority of the societies inhabitants. Simply put, a government that does not have the widespread support of its citizens, and was formed without their input or consent through representatives or directly, that government has no real authority. This section is a perfect segway into Lockes final topic. The Second treatise is closed out with the peoples right to revolution. As discussed earlier, Locke gives his thoughts on what a people should do not just when their government has taken power without their consent, but when it has neglected to protect, or has openly attacked the people lives, liberty, and property. Locke doesn’t mince words, suggesting that the people aren’t just justified, but have a duty to throw off government that has illegitimate authority, or exercises its power tyrannically. Locke says that any government that engages in breaking the trust of its citizens, and begins to act in a way that threatens the citizens rights, the state has declared war against its citizens, and should expect war in return. With that, the second treatise ends. The question one would want to ask, is how were these two treatises received? In Britain, his work wasn’t what we consider a hit. It wouldn’t be until the 1760’s, 70 years after it was published, that ‘Two Treatises of Government’ would start to become popular in the British isles. However, the ideas and positions Locke shared, especially in his second treatise, began to see influence in the parliament near the very end of Locke’s life. In North America, specifically in the 13 British colonies, Lockes writings gained popularity at around the same time they did in Britain, the 1760’s. Lockes ideas would be directly or indirectly alluded to in the American Revolution, particularly portions of the Declaration of Independence. While historians argue as to how much influence Lockes theories had in the Revolution, it is generally agreed he played a significant part in the philosophies and ideas espoused by many of the Founding Fathers. Since that time, ‘Two Treatises of Government’ has been studied and cross examined for hundreds of years by political philosophers, law students, and historians, and has earned its place as one of the most influential books to come out of the 17th century. I usually try to share 3 quotes for the books I read and review, but for this book, I just couldn’t widdle it down to 3, so I hope you can enjoy two more quotes. I’ll try to limit my commentary. The first quote I want to share is the only quote from the First Treatise, it can be found on page 66. “The great question which in all ages has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it. The settling of this point being of no smaller moment than the security of princes, and the peace and welfare of their estates and kingdoms, a reformer of politics, one would think, should lay this sure, and be very clear in it: for if this remain disputable, all the rest will be to very little purpose; and the skill used in dressing up power with all the splendor and temptation absoluteness can add to it, without showing who has a right to have it, will serve only to give a greater edge to man’s natural ambition, which of itself is but too keen. What can this do but set men on the more eagerly to scramble, and so lay a sure and lasting foundation of endless contention and disorder, instead of that peace and tranquility, which is the business of government, and the end of human society?” The rest of the quotes I’ll be reading are all from the second treatise, the first of which is on page 101. It reads, “Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.” Our next quote is on page 185, “For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to choose their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent; and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have, that nobody can take away any part of it without their own consent, without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war.” The next quote is just a few pages later on page 189, it says, “Thus that learned King, who well understood the notions of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite. It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.” The final quote I’ll share with you is on page 199, if you are knowledgeable with the U.S declaration of Independence, this might sound pretty familiar too you. “Secondly, I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.” I hope you enjoyed those quotes as much as I did. Now I want to give you the first two scores for the book, the first being comprehension. I give ‘Two Treatises of Government’ an 8/10 for comprehension. The book is in late 17th century English, and utilizes latin, Hebrew, and Greek from time to time, it’s not super challenging if you have a dictionary and google translate handy. For Engagement, I give the book a 6/10. The first treatise, while unique and full of interesting ideas from Locke, is a pretty intense read, and can be laborious to get through at points, the second treatise is very engaging, and doesn’t suffer from the same hyper focus the first treatise does at points. As for the G-R rating, ‘Two Treatises of Government’ is rated PG, this has nothing to do with the content so much as It does the complexity. This book is safe for all to read, but probably won’t be that easy to understand or process for really young readers. Now we will move on to reader reviews from goodreads.com. Just like last time, I’ll go over the top review for each star rating, and give some short commentary. For our 1 star review, Janice Feng said, “Settler colonialism in disguise, and boring analytic reasoning.” The 2 star review is from Miguel Cisneros, he says, “In the first chapter, John Locke, briefly summarizes the content of his previous treatise, that is, the treatise in which he refuted the theory of the divine right of kings as it had been elaborated by Robert Filmer, although there is also a veiled criticism of the doctrine of Hobbes. No one can prove, says Locke, that Adam and his would-be heirs (these would be the self-appointed kings) received from God the power to rule the world. And it is that there is no divine law that determines which is the legitimate heir to govern the world. The oldest line, in the descent of Adam, is so old and was lost so long ago, that it cannot be shown which family has more preeminence in claiming the right of inheritance. Therefore, it is absurd for today's kings to attempt to base their right to the kingdom on an alleged paternal jurisdiction of Adam. Therefore, any theory that attempts to show that the power of kings derives from God through Adam is neither logical nor credible. Now, Locke continues, if everything said so far is true: where does the origin of governments and political power come from? It is here that Locke develops his critique of Hobbes's politics. For it is that if the foundation of civil government does not have its origin in some commandment of God or in the hereditary genealogy of Adam, then either every government is the product of force and violence, which by nature, men would become like beasts so that the strongest is that rises with power; Or we need to develop a new theory of civil government. According to Locke, to understand the nature of government and to deduce what its origin was, one must consider what was the state in which men were by nature, that is, before society and political governments existed. It is evident that Locke, as an empiricist, starts from the principle that all knowledge must start from observation and experience. Therefore, according to him, every form of government should start from the analysis of man in his primitive state, that is, in the state of nature. The state of nature, although it is a state of freedom, does not mean that it is a state of thoughtlessness. In this context man in the state of nature would not be free to destroy himself, since God requires him, through his divine commands, to keep his life until He decides to take it away, this includes the prohibition of destroying others, since all men are endowed with the same faculties and participate in a common nature so it would not be right to destroy, without further ado, the life of others. This means that when a criminal falls into the hands of a man in a state of nature he cannot do with him what he pleases but only punish him according to the dictates of reason, assigning him penalties that are proportional to the crime committed, with the aim of repairing the damage committed and not repeating his action. In short, from the state of nature, the first human rights are derived. These are: punish any crime in order to prevent it from happening again and give reparations and protection to the weakest. According to Locke, each transgression would be punished to the degree and proportion sufficient for the offender to lose out and thus give him a reason to repent and dissuade himself from doing the same again. In conclusion, the natural state is a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and conservation based on Epicurus' Hedonism. It is also that in which men live together according to reason, without an earthly power with authority to judge them. And just like this, the herd ought to use reason alone to determine which men are supposed to rule them under democratic conventions and elections.” The 3 star review is from pinkyivan, “Inoffensive, agreeable, well written, but also rather dull and useless.” For the 4 star rating, we have a review from Orhan Pelinkovic, he said, “The First Treatise is devoted to refuting Sir Robert Filmer's defense of monarchy and patriarchalism, in which property, women, and children are subjects of a father, and the father's subjects of the King. This is all in line with Filmer's central argument, loosely based on Scriptural writings, that God created Adam and the world at his disposal, which makes Adam our first king and the sole proprietor of everything, and all rights can only be inherited through his lineage, namely through a male descendant. However, in Locke's view, all men and women are born free and lived before the first established civil societies in accord with the laws of nature, in what John Locke (1632-1704) refers to as the State of Nature. Where by he believes that the only reason the people are to enter, by mutual consent, into a political community is to better preserve their liberty and secure their property as the property is insufficiently regulated in the State of Nature. Nevertheless, these Civil Societies should be in harmony with the natural rights enjoyed in the State of Nature. Locke goes on further to discuss the necessity of the separation of the legislative and executive powers, the people's rights to retain instruments to overthrow governments, and that an individual's "labor of his body and the work of his hands" are to remain in their possession. Locke, a philosopher, and a physician began studying and writing about government and politics once he came under the influence of the first earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper). Spinoza's and Descartes' impact on Locke's philosophy is evident but his philosophy remains original. A great book with a lengthy biographical introduction of John Locke who is today commonly known as the Father of Liberalism. Worth reading.” And now for the 5 star rating, Kenghis Khan said, “Those of us living in liberal democracies owe tremendous intellectual debt to John Locke. His "Second Treatise" in particular helped lay the foundation for a political system that emphasized "life, liberty, and property." The First Treatise is interesting to skim through, though it is in the second where the Locke is most substantive. His Theory of Private Property, which could also be construed as a theory of value, is an unmistakable revolution in political thought. It is, as Locke contends, when man applies his labor to nature that he is entitled to it. Questions about environmental ethics or indegenous rights aside, this observation, made in a still heavily ecclesiastical society, is a brilliant one. Furthermore, Locke's understanding of the formation of government is based on a hypothetical "state of nature" account. Locke's arguments are intellectually pleasing, and his social-scientific models make intuitive sense. Given that, perhaps the only weakness of the work is its failure to adequately analyze such concepts as the social contract or his theory of labor-property relations. For example, Locke fails to seriously consider what we should do with states that are clearly formed by mere force. Indeed, he doesn't adequately address the possibility that such a state could justify its existence on the grounds that "better tyranny than nothing." While Locke believes that a state that doesn't respect private property cannot last for very long, history says otherwise. Of course, in retrospect it is easier to criticize Locke in these regards, but with Machiavelli before him it was not as though these ideas were not known. There are admittedly other inconsistencies, such as his view on taxation later in the book and on who "owns" the grass his serf cuts. Interestingly enough, Locke is unwilling to expound on the distinction between property garnered for the sake of personal enjoyment (possessions) and property garnered for the sake of profit. Nevertheless, the work is a passionate defense of a liberal government, and the points are persuasively argued. As long as the reader, as Locke himself urges, keeps a skeptical attitude, this work has much to offer.” Final thoughts, overall score is 8/10.Go over three books for season three government/ politics genre. Plug social media. ‘Moral Politics: How liberals and conservatives think’ by George Lakoff. ‘The founders second amendment by Stephen P. Halbrook. White fragility: why its so hard for white people to talk about racism by Robert D’Angelo. Thank you once again for joining me for this review, I hope you enjoyed it, learned something new, and maybe have this book in mind to check out and read. For my Christian listeners, happy Easter, Christ the Lord is risen. This has been the Revitalized Reading Podcast, thanks for tuning, Stay safe, and as always keep reading.
