Summary Of John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

John Locke, who was an English philosopher and physician, wrote the Second Treatise of Government. The Second Treatise of Government focused on having sovereignty into the hands of people and believes there are two states: state of nature and state or war. Locke strongly believed in human rights, equality, and the labor theory of value. However, Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote, The Prince, emphasized on having a government with a ruler having absolute total power over its people. Machiavelli believed that it is better to be feared than to be loved because people’s human natures are self-interested, evil, and greedy. Furthermore, he insists that a ruler must have no morals or else he will not rule for long. This lead to Locke criticizing Machiavelli …show more content…
He advocates that the power should be heavily within the people and not only for the government. The absolute ideal goal is to have the government’s role protecting its citizens as he believed in popular sovereignty. In this book, Second Treatise of Government, he states that there are two states: state of war and state of nature. “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker” (§6). State of nature is when every human being have the right to be free and are all equal because each individual were created by God. Everyone has an equal chance of being prosperous. On the other hand, state of war is when someone attempts to break a natural law and threaten an individual. It justifies the action of self-defence when someone is threatening his or her natural laws. Locke heavily believes on the power of the people. For an instance, if the people are not satisfied with government or if the government is not protecting it’s people, then the citizens have the right to revolt against the government. All of these beliefs are complete opposite of Machiavelli’s beliefs. Locke would heavily criticize Machiavelli’s …show more content…
However, at the time of the Enlightenment, capitalism reestablished the role of the government. This resulted in destroying feudalism throughout Europe. While Machiavelli believes that the ruler must maintain their power and rule over everyone, Locke believes that the power of the government should belong to the people. He heavily believed on the power of the people. For an instance, if the people are not satisfied with government or if the government is not protecting it’s people, then the citizens have the right to revolt against the government. Moreover, he believed in popular sovereignty, where the citizens have the right to choose how they should be governed instead of just having one ruler making all of the decisions. Locke believes that the purpose of the government is to protect its citizen and fulfill the people’s desires or else they will have the intention to overthrow the government that is not fulfilling its job. Even though Locke advocated for a democratic system of government, he did not believe it was the only valid system of government. He states in his book, “hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at