locke

Essay on Locke’s Second Treatise of Government
by Charles Glenn

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke offers an answer to Hobbes’ Leviathan, exposing the latter’s weakest argument. Locke was able to see the logic in Hobbes’ arguments regarding the nature of man and their natural rights, but he went beyond Hobbe’s somewhat simplistic answer to the problem of justice in government, destroying his concept of a divinely appointed absolute monarch.

What Hobbes’ failed to see was that his monarch was as equally fallible as the subjects he ruled. Locke was not only able to see this fact, but was also able to devise a philosophy that accounted for it. He developed an argument based on the central idea that the authority of any government is derived from the consent of the governed.

His view of human nature was less constrained than Hobbes’, and allowed that humans "naturally" possess only those rights that do not infringe on another’s rights. The only time that a person is allowed to infringe on another’s rights is when that person has forfeited their own rights by violating another’s.

This philosophy, based largely on Biblical principles, is revealed through the author’s discourse on the "natural state of man." According to Locke, however, this ideal state of nature was impractical in larger societies, which created the need for a government to settle disputes and arbitrate justice.

The most fundamental differences between the two men were their views of human nature and justice. According to Hobbes’, mankind was naturally in a state of anarchy, where men were constantly at odds with one another in attempts to acquire the possessions of others, and only a strong "Leviathan" could impose the needed order.

For Locke, the natural state was an ideal, peaceful state, which allowed each person to acquire only what they needed, but as society grew and people were competing for resources that more scarce, they decided amongst themselves to establish laws and governments.

Locke used logical arguments to support this idea, such as the tacit agreement among people about the value of money and the rationale for private property. It is difficult to over-emphasize the effect this change in thinking about the existence, function and value of government would have on history.