"Two Treatises of Government": AND "A Letter Concerning Toleration" (Rethinking the Western Tradition) [Paperback]

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.

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.

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.