Customer Reviews

Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

I will try to avoid getting involved in the heated debate that the two previous reviewers wrapped themselves in. Instead I will focus my attention on giving my opinion pertaining to the quality of Ian Shapiro's work. The book itself is laid out beautifully. As a poli-sci student it is a blessing to have such a well laid out book to use in my studies. The choice of font only serves to amplify the intensity of Locke's ideas. Ideas that inevitably shaped the society we live in today. If you are studying the works of this man, or just reading for leisure don't hesitate to read this version, you will not be disappointed.

An amazing intellectual honesty and courageous spirit John Locke had. This book should be read with context of time period in mind. John Locke is more appreciative and thoughtful of the independence of man than many are today- those who are independent and free because of men like John Locke. Perhaps, some will argue that his theories were incomplete or not tolerable enough, but the man is a major contributor to the Englightenment. There is much to be thankful for.

The first treatise is a response to Robert Filmer's "Patriarcha". Filmer was a monarchist who strongly believed that Scripture proved that authoritarianism was natural and patriarchy its vessel- following the line of Adam. Locke strongly reputes Filmer's reasoning. The first treatise can be summed up on page 77: "And there would be an end of all civil government, if the assignment of civil power were by divine institution to the heir, and yet by that divine institution the person of the heir could not be known. This paternal regal power being by divine right only his, it leaves no room for human prudence, or consent, to place it any where else; for if only one man hath a divine right to the obedience of mankind, nobody can claim that obedience but he that can show that right; nor can men's consciences by any other pretence be obliged to it. And thus this doctrine cuts up all government by the roots."

The second treatise is Locke's argument for civil government of the people- not monarchy. He strongly argues in defense of the individual, property rights, freedom of conscience, man's equality, ending status quo, elected representation, and much more. He makes a strong case for what he believes is the purpose of government and how those governments should avoid arbitrary power. Having studied Thomas Jefferson, it is obvious that Jefferson invested much stock in Locke's ideas. He parallels Locke in many ways.

"A Letter Concerning Toleration" would benefit many Christians and non-Christians. In fact, Christopher Hitchens could have saved himself some time and a book- "God is Not Great"- had he read John Locke's response that ironically was written 300 years prior to Hitchens' criticism. Due to time and space- I could go on in details about what a wonderful piece of literature I believe this to be- but I will spare the reader.

There are 3 essays at the end of Locke's letters. The first, written by John Dunn, who obviously has the hots for 4 syllable words and plugging fellow historians. The second, by Ruth Grant, who seems a tad bitter and unappreciative that Locke didn't go far enough with women's liberation. I suppose he was too busy with that whole dismantling the monarchy thing. The third, by Ian Shapiro who gives a fair and enjoyable summation of Locke's views on Democracy.

Why review Locke himself?

This is the edition to get, regardless of the fact that you may only need to read the second treatise for most classes. The print is somewhat small but not blinding, the book is sturdy and will stand up to abuse, and like another reviewer stated it is well formatted and organized.

Where this book really shines is in the 3 essays provided, all from highly competent and recognized scholars. Ruth Grant's essay "Locke on Women and The Family" is by far the best, and her analysis of how we fairly and unfairly impose modern questions on historical figures is instructive far past the single case of John Locke. John Dunn's essay is a bit obtuse and convoluted but provides a fascinating look at Lockean scholarship in perspective, while Shapiro's essay is the least captivating but perhaps the most important, as it attempts to distinguish just how much (or poignantly little) Locke actually had to say about democracy and majority rule.

Don't waste your time with a 2 dollar paperback edition; treat your brain to the feast presented in this fine piece of an academic edition.

It is well known, of course, that John Locke was a major inspiration behind the Founding Fathers. With this book, it is easy to understand why.

In the "First Essay On Government", Locke takes the argument of the "divine right" of kings--and uses a brilliant, clever, and effective combination of Biblical theology and logical argument to completely obliterate that concept.

With that out of the way, Locke turned to write his "Second Essay On Civil Government", where the question is asked: Now that we have disproved any "entitlement" to royalty...where do we go from here? What is the basis for governing a civil society?

The major highlight of this treatise is Chapter 2, in which Locke formally establishes the doctrine of Natural Rights. He starts with the natural state of Man, leading up to the necessary elements of Man's existence--the philisophical necessities, of course, being "rights".

There is an interesting moment where Locke questions whether a citizen of one society should ever be punished for breaking the laws of another socety, even if said citizen is IN that other society. It's worth noting that Locke was quick to note that it is a QUESTION, not a statement of belief. Perhaps it's his idea of a "modest proposal".

Contrary to popular belief, Locke is not a "Poor Man's Hobbes" or a "Confused Man's Hobbes". Locke's views on rights and Liberty have quite a few differences from Hobbes's: while often subtle, they are very important, indeed. It becomes clear while reading Locke's prescriptions for government--including the people's rights to alter ot abolish it--that Locke would not have recommended an authoritarian government of the likes of the Leviathan!

Finally, there is "A Letter Concerning Toleration". Here, Locke tackles the issue of "seperation of church and state". He discusses what it truly means...and how it does NOT mean the weaking of religion that secular progressives of the Left desire it to mean. To the contrary, abolishing a state religion, Locke argues, actually should STRENGTHEN the religious element of a free society.

John Locke was, in short, a man years ahead of his time. It is a tragedy that few, if any, in government have seemed willing to listen to him.

Locke's book should be required reading for all high school students. He writes about how our government was meant to work.

John Locke did not "steal" his ideas from the constitution; his writings were the basis for many of Thomas Jefferson's ideas in the Declaration and subsequently influenced the American constitution. His treatise is a defining moment in political writings and a must read for anyone who is interested in history, politics or philosophy. This is a good book that covers his key writings.

John Locke died nearly ninety years before the constitution was written. The likes of Jefferson and Hamilton referenced this book in their respective endeavors to frame our constitution and sunbsequent government.

I do not wish to disrespect dead people but I believe Mr.Locke deserves it here.

I picked up the book expecting to read a masterpiece and what I get is Locke playing Captain Obvious. I did not even bother to read the first part of the book where he attacks Robert Filmer using Biblical verses. The second part of the book should not be spent on because what Locke is stating is already so obvious that you don't need to read a book about it. I suggest reading his book "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". It is much better.