Government is a voluntary, conditional contract designed solely to protect natural rights—specifically life, liberty, and property—and its legitimacy depends entirely on the ongoing consent of the governed.
Legitimate political authority is not derived from divine right or absolute power, but from a social contract where individuals voluntarily surrender certain freedoms to a government in exchange for the protection of their inherent natural rights.
This is the foundational blueprint for modern liberalism and constitutional democracy. It solves the fundamental problem of legitimacy: Why should you obey a law? It is for anyone who wants to understand the moral architecture of the state, the limits of authority, and the specific rights that belong to the individual regardless of what a government says. After reading this, you will be able to identify when a government has overstepped its mandate and understand the philosophical basis for civil disobedience and revolution.
Locke argues that human beings are naturally free, equal, and independent. In a "State of Nature," individuals possess the right to their own persons and the fruits of their labor. However, this state of perfect freedom is problematic because there is no impartial judge to settle disputes over property or rights. Without a common law and an agreed-upon enforcement mechanism, individuals are forced to be their own judges, which leads to chaos and insecurity.
To solve this, individuals enter into a "Social Contract." They do not surrender their rights; they merely delegate the power to enforce the law to a civil government. The government's sole purpose is to act as a neutral arbiter that protects "Property"—which Locke defines broadly as life, liberty, and estate. If a government fails to protect these rights, or worse, begins to systematically violate them, it loses its legitimacy, and the people have a moral right (and duty) to replace it.
Use this to evaluate whether a government action is legitimate based on Locke's principles:
A framework for understanding how private ownership is justified:
Locke distinguishes between a state of nature (where people are mostly peaceful but lack a judge) and a state of war (where active violence occurs). This teaches that the problem with a lack of government isn't necessarily "evil" people, but the lack of a neutral system to resolve inevitable human disagreements.
Locke uses the example of a man who tills a piece of land. Because the land was originally "waste" and the man added his labor to it, the land becomes his. This teaches that property is a moral claim rooted in human effort, not just a gift from a ruler.
Locke describes the moment of revolution as an "appeal to heaven." This isn't a literal religious act, but a metaphor for the people's right to judge for themselves when there is no earthly judge left to appeal to. It teaches that the ultimate sovereignty remains with the people.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, reason, which opens all instances to inquiry." Why it matters: It asserts that morality is inherent in human reason, not something invented by governments.
"The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into political societies, is to preserve their property." (Paraphrased) Why it matters: This defines the "job description" of the state.
"Every man has a property in his own person: this no man hath right to our, but over our bodies, and though they may be defended with lawful violence, yet no body can justly claim them as his property." (Paraphrased) Why it matters: This is the bedrock of individual autonomy.
This week
Ongoing
Reflection questions
If a government provides you with safety but demands you give up your right to private thought or speech, has it violated the social contract? Why?
How does the idea that "property" includes your own body change how you view your career, your health, and your personal boundaries?
If there is no "State of Nature" (if humans are inherently social), does that make the Social Contract less important or more important?
Flashcards Q: What is the "State of Nature"? A: A pre-political state where humans are free and equal, governed by the Law of Nature (reason).
Q: What is the primary purpose of government according to Locke? A: To preserve the property (life, liberty, and estate) of the people.
Q: What is the source of political legitimacy? A: The consent of the governed.
Q: What does Locke mean by "Property"? A: A broad term encompassing an individual's life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor.
Q: What is the "Right of Revolution"? A: The right of the people to replace a government that has violated the social contract and acted as a tyrant.
Q: Why is the State of Nature "inconvenient"? A: Because there is no common judge or established law to settle disputes, forcing individuals to be judges in their own cases.
This summary is grounded in the core arguments of Locke's Two Treatises of Government (specifically the Second Treatise, which deals with the social contract). I am highly confident in the definitions of Property, Consent, and the State of Nature. Because Locke's prose is dense and 17th-century, some nuances of his "State of Nature" (the distinction between the first and second treatises) are simplified for clarity. Readers should verify the specific distinction between the "State of Nature" and the "State of Civil Society" in the text to see the full complexity of his argument.
A Letter Concerning TolerationJohn Locke
Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil governmentJohn Locke
Essays on the law of natureJohn Locke
Locke's travels in France, 1675-1679John Locke
Political writingsJohn Locke
Some thoughts concerning educationJohn Locke
The reasonableness of ChristianityJohn Locke
The Second Treatise on Civil Government (Great Books in Philosophy)John LockeTwo Treaties of Government (annotated)John Locke
Two treatises on civil governmentJohn Locke
Two Treatises on GovernmentJohn Locke