✰ Two Treatises of Government Epub ✶ Author John Locke – Anguillais.us

Two Treatises of Government This Is A New Revised Version Of Dr Laslett S Standard Edition Of Two Treatises First Published In , And Based On An Analysis Of The Whole Body Of Locke S Publications, Writings, And Papers The Introduction And Text Have Been Revised To Incorporate References To Recent Scholarship Since The Second Edition And The Bibliography Has Been Updated

✰ Two Treatises of Government  Epub ✶ Author John Locke – Anguillais.us
  • Paperback
  • 480 pages
  • Two Treatises of Government
  • John Locke
  • English
  • 15 September 2018
  • 0521357306

    10 thoughts on “✰ Two Treatises of Government Epub ✶ Author John Locke – Anguillais.us


  1. says:

    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, w 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 Further, 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


  2. says:

    meh


  3. says:

    As its title states, John Locke s Two Treatises on Government are two separate treatments on the basis of just and legitimate government the first of which is structured as a rebuttal to the notion, as articulated in Robert Filmer s Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings , of monarchical power authorized by divine right whereas the second is a positive articulation of concepts and principles setting the source of authority for any legitimate government within the consent of the governed As its title states, John Locke s Two Treatises on Government are two separate treatments on the basis of just and legitimate government the first of which is structured as a rebuttal to the notion, as articulated in Robert Filmer s Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings , of monarchical power authorized by divine right whereas the second is a positive articulation of concepts and principles setting the source of authority for any legitimate government within the consent of the governed The essential argument that Locke rebutted in the first treatise was that of a king s right to rule his subjects derived from divine authority the divine right of kings In Patriarcha Filmer asserted that the right of a king to rule over subjects was absolute, bestowed by God to Adam, the original patriarch, and has been passed down to successive rulers ever since by the dominion, Filmer asserts, God gave to all fathers over their own children Locke sets down an almost line for line refutation of Filmer s assertions, arguing, essentially, that God bestowed no such right to Adam and even if he had, that right certainly did not pass to successive generations by virtue of any divine grant of patriarchal authority Not having read Filmer, there was a great temptation to skip over Locke s first treatise however, through various sly and interesting means throughout his refutation of Filmer, Locke lays the groundwork for his second treatise, namely, that whatever right a ruler has to rule comes exclusively from the consent of the governed Although this, in itself, is enough to warrant the first treatise a full read, as a bonus, Locke provides a wonderful example of a trained rhetorician s rebuttal of the absurd through logic and reason that makes the read worthwhile Moreover, in expressing his argument, Locke s capacity for urbane, condescending humor leaches out through every line as he takes obvious delight in ridiculing the absurdities of Filmer s arguments The crux of Locke s second treatise so fascinating is that although it was written over 300 years ago, it will resonate with anyone aware of traditional American notions of political common sense Locke argues that by nature, each men are born equal and subject to no obligation of obedience to anyone However, notwithstanding this, living this equality carries the risk that those with greater strength can, through force, compel a free man to do whatever the strong man wants, including surrendering his property To forestall this risk, Lock argues, mankind has assented to surrendering a portion of his individual liberty to the extent that he is prepared to adhere to mutually agreed upon laws of the community in exchange for the protections afforded by common government whose laws and rules serve to protect him and his possessions Government, therefore, derives its power and authority not from any ancient grant bestowed by God upon Adam, but only by the consent of the governed.While none of this is particularly revolutionary to a contemporary reader, it s fascinating to read these ideas that today we all take for granted as a proposition that, in Locke s time, had to be persuasively argued Moreover, Locke s ideas are not necessarily a one to one match to those of contemporary democratic philosophy In particular, the centrality of property in Locke s thesis is striking to the way we think of government today The purpose of any government, Locke assures us, is to protect the sanctity of individual property from unjust appropriation by others What s interesting is the way he takes for granted either that everyone has property to be defended, or, what islikely, the only people whose rights matter are those with property to protect His assumption, of course, is that there is a level playing field and that the only path to wealth accumulation is through dint of hard work Imagine, he argues, that there is a common forest full of acorn trees A man, seeing an acorn on the ground, picks it up The acorns are the common property of the community, but in the moment the man expends his labor to pick it up, the right to that acorn reverts to him who expended the labor to harvest It is, he continues, a crime to pick upacorns than he can consume as the excess will go to rot however, if he is able to trade his excess for the excess of some other entrepreneur the fact that he s harvestedthan he personally needs goes from being a public evil brought about by waste to a public good brought about by plenty accessible to a greater number of community members What he ignores, of course, is that when the acorn guy grabs up all the acorns such that he and he alone has all the food there is to be had in the commons, people, faced with starvation, will do anything including bartering away their own freedom to get a share of the man s horded wealth Throughout his discourse, Locke is silent about how property is accumulated if you have property, regardless of the means by which you ve acquired it, you deserve the protection of the law, including, presumably, protection from the masses of starving people who will, in their desperation, attempt to rob from you in order that they might eat Locke s cannon is life, liberty and property, it took a different hand and a hundred years for this to become the famous, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so dear to Americans It was, as one can probably imagine, a light read especially the first treatise Yet it s interesting to go back and read about the ideas that changed the world that were written at a time then those ideas were fresh, new and highly controversial


  4. says:

    This is not the first time I ve signed this book s dance card but it is the first time that I ve read the first treatise It is an energetic decimating of the political theory of someone that no one cares about any That s how bad the theory was And I have to say that I m not sure it was the best use of Locke s time and effort to debunk it But perhaps that s just the perspective of time speaking I didn t mind the read, though Locke is sometimes quite funny in his disgust and I was up any This is not the first time I ve signed this book s dance card but it is the first time that I ve read the first treatise It is an energetic decimating of the political theory of someone that no one cares about any That s how bad the theory was And I have to say that I m not sure it was the best use of Locke s time and effort to debunk it But perhaps that s just the perspective of time speaking I didn t mind the read, though Locke is sometimes quite funny in his disgust and I was up anyway.The second treatise needs no further accolades from anyone It is foundational Whether I accept it or not is largely irrelevant so I won t go all first treatise on it or any of its salient points It s got a good beat and I can dance to it so what else really matters Edited to add O.M.Gravy I forgot about the introduction That was a wee bit painful You have to fight for it You might perish in the attempt It might not be worth it On the plus side, if you do fight your way through it and then a couple weeks later you get your feelings hurt in a way you never saw coming, you can always look back and say, Okay, this doesn t feel great But is it worse than that time I read the introduction to Two Treatises And, your answer will be certainly be, Oh, hell no So, there s that


  5. says:

    This book is a must read for understanding social contract theory Although it is not my cup of tea, it does confront a great many current political issues that were also present in the 17th century I also liked Locke s emphasis that government is meant to be supportive of the public their rights, not the rights of the politicians or corporations.


  6. says:

    One of the volumes that helped our founders form the Republic in the Convention of 1787 I highly recommend that anyone who wishes to understand what principle we started out to live under were and therefore better understand what we ve become in ignorance of them.


  7. says:

    A great work of political philosophy Less revolutionary than I thought it would be And less liberal than I thought it would be.


  8. says:

    Had to read this for one of my classes this semester, if you guys wonder hides in a corner


  9. says:

    yesive read it, and you should toothis dude was thomas jefferson s BFF


  10. says:

    Listened to a Librivox recording Featured some very strong readers all of book one was read with passion and eloquence aside from about 3 chapters which were nearly unlistenable It s easy enough to find this text online, so I read through the unlistenable chapters and went on my way While the second treatise still raises some interesting questions concerning consent and government, I anticipate the first treatise will be nigh unreadable for modern readers The first treatise uses scripture Listened to a Librivox recording Featured some very strong readers all of book one was read with passion and eloquence aside from about 3 chapters which were nearly unlistenable It s easy enough to find this text online, so I read through the unlistenable chapters and went on my way While the second treatise still raises some interesting questions concerning consent and government, I anticipate the first treatise will be nigh unreadable for modern readers The first treatise uses scripture to systematically disprove that Adam is the progenitor of the only legitimate form of government the divinely ordained hereditary absolute monarchy I imagine it was a big deal at the time, but it s pretty damn stupid now I only kept reading it because a I am an obsessive completionist and b because John Locke is a total unflinching asshole to Robert Filmer writer of Patriarcha, the book which expounds the theory of Adamic Inheritance I would recommend readers skip the first treatise entirely and move onto the second treatise Although many of the second treatise arguments will be very familiar to a modern reader there is still much of Locke s work concerning the natural liberty of men that is still surprising and thought provoking Even the parts that areconventional by our standards managed to fill my American heart with civil pride Comparing our own Republic with that of the Lockean ideal gives a lot of relevance to this work, particularly due to its influence on America s Founding Fathers In general this is a rather slight work and has nothing of the epic magnitude of Hobbes s Leviathan which I often hear it compared to , but that might be a good thing for most readers One does not have to immerse themselves in Locke s metaphysics or epistemology in order to access Locke s political philosophy, as neither subject makes much of an appearance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *