Definitely shows some very fundamental ideas that have shaped our country to this day! I had to read this for class, heavily focusing more so on the Second Treatise. Although, I didn't read the entire thing, what we did read consisted of things I mostly agreed with (inalienable rights and whatnot). Following this up after reading Leviathan was a bit boring, though. I had more fun disagreeing with Hobbes, than I did agreeing with Locke.

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 anymore. 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...

Skimmed over most of it, read parts in full

Ch 1-8 of the second treatise. Locke was a bit of a doofus.

This book is almost as dense as I am.

Jefferson called Locke's 2nd Treatise a "perfect little book" and Locke's ideas permeate the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. His brilliant articulation of the necessary components of civilian-led government - from the social contract to the separation of powers and the respective roles of the judiciary, legislature, and executive is pretty mind-blowing, this persuasive, logical conceptualization of how we might organize ourselves politically so as to reduce predation while p...

The first of the two treatises is fairly irrelevant. It's a very witty refutal of Robert Filmer's theory of divine right, which was a relevant case in the 18th Century, but now it's become so ingrained in the democratic/republican tradition (and I use that term very, very, very broadly) as to be an essential component of most every state on Earth.I cannot argue with the fact that history has vindicated John Locke's political philosophy. His writings were a necessary step in the evolution of a li...

Great read with a deep modern relevance. John Locke has an eloquent way of explaining things that that we inhabitants of modern day western society seem to take for granted. You may read these books and think to yourself "How stupidly obvious! Why is he going to such great lengths to explain things which are so commonly known?" but soon you begin to understand that, in the days of the enlightenment, a time of monarchies and auto-da-fés, putting forth such liberal ideas was truly ground breaking....

A lot of it is wasted on pointless argumentation about what exactly does the Bible say about the right to rule. There's a lot of Bible quoting and it doesn't get sensible until halfway through. The rest of it is groundbreaking nevertheless quite common sense nowadays. Except the bit about rulers not being allowed to appoint other rulers who were not elected directly by the people and ceding any law making power to them. Sounds like what is annoying people about the EU.

I had to read this for college. But I have read it anyway. Locke establish the pillars of liberalism. But I found his work lesser than that of Hobbes.

If I'm being honest, the First Treatise is more fun. Locke is a witty writer, and he rarely misses the mark when poking fun at authoritarianism, but his tone is more barbed when dealing with the absurdity of Divine Right than when developing his own system. (That said, one joke in 2:235 about how an author who demands 'reverence' from rebels "deserves for his pains a civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it" definitely made me chuckle.)Regardless, the Second Treatise is the impo...

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...

Inoffensive, agreeable, well written, but also rather dull and useless.

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 locating the source of authority for any legitimate government within the consent of the governe...

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.

John Locke's major work of political philosophy is often referred to as a major source for the Declaration of Independence, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. This work, authored in 1690, is a major statement of liberalism. Like Thomas Hobbes, Locke begins with humans living in a state of nature, a situation before the development of the state and government. The Lockeian state of nature was not an unpleasant place. Human reason led people to tend to leave one another alone in their respec...

yes . . . ive read it, and you should too . . . this dude was thomas jefferson's BFF!!!!

Locke was a monstrous evil that made the world a far worse place. He was really clever tho

In the first treatise, Locke goes against Sir Robert Filmer who wrote a book defending monarchy via scripture, giving the king a scriptural claim to power. Locke uses scripture against him to show that Filmer is mistaken, and ends up defending the individual(or in the sense of family, the parents) as the one with legitimate power over his own life. IT's more theology than political philosophy, so it is understandably not going home as an argument with the modern atheist. In the second treatise,

"For if it be asked what security, what fence is there in such a state against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler, the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you that it deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be measures, laws, and judges for their mutual peace and security. But as for the ruler, he ought to be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has a power to do more hurt and wro...