The philosopher John Locke, recognized as the founder of classical liberalism, has inspired people over the centuries who have sought to base politics on wisdom rather than tradition. Today, the idea of government by popular consent seems self-evident, even in regimes that pay lip service to liberalism. In the eighteenth century, however, such views were at least risky.

While working on his Two Treatises on Government, Locke was an advocate of exclusivism and an opponent of the coronation of James II, seeing him as a tyrannical ruler who was trying to tilt England toward Catholicism. When this political crisis became a serious threat to the country, Locke emigrated to Holland. Only after the king was overthrown by a coalition of English politicians and the Dutch ruler William of Orange was Locke able to return to England. William III's accession to the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 cemented parliamentary power, and the era of royal despotism seemed to be a thing of the past.

It has long been thought that the Two Treatises were a justification for this revolution, but modern historians believe that Locke wrote most of the work between 1679 and 1681. Although his hopes for political change were realized, he was not a radical revolutionary philosopher.

Unlike Hobbes's Leviathan, which became famous for predicting the restoration of the monarchy after the civil wars initiated by Cromwell, John Locke's works, including his Two Treatises on Government, went largely unnoticed during his lifetime. They were not truly recognized until the late 18th century, when they were praised by such thinkers of the French Enlightenment as Voltaire and Rousseau, as well as by the founders of America, Jefferson and Madison.

Locke's political philosophy has often been accused of influencing the French and American Revolutions, as well as contributing to the secularization of Western society. His ideas played an important role in the anti-slavery movement. Locke argued that any government must be based on the consent of the governed, and opposed any government that ignored the need for the explicit or tacit consent of the people. Given that Locke referred to the monarchs of his day as illegitimate dictators, it is not surprising that he published his treatises anonymously and did not mention the names of the rulers in them.

Locke's views on kings

In his first, shorter treatise, John Locke consistently criticizes the views of Sir Robert Filmer, who defended absolutist monarchy in his famous work. Filmer argued that just as children are not born free and belong to their parents, so adults should always be subject to their “father” - the monarch. In his view, God gave Adam dominion over the earth, and this right is passed on to kings, making them holders of divine authority. The monarch, in Filmer's view, is above the law because it is immutable.

Locke categorically rejects such ideas, arguing that the analogy between the father of the family and the king of the country is flawed. Adults, unlike children, have the ability to think and act independently without being dependent. 

If we follow Filmer's logic to the end, then everyone, including princes and aristocrats, except the king himself, would be slaves. As for the divine right of kings, Locke calls it absurd, pointing out that there is no biblical basis for such a claim. Moreover, even if this theory were true, it is impossible to trace the lineage of modern monarchs back to the biblical Adam. Instead of arguing that the king has all the power and the people have none, Locke promotes the idea of natural rights that everyone is endowed with from birth, including the right to liberty. In his view, it is time for the “child” to assert its independence from the “father.”

All men are equal

In his second treatise, Locke describes a hypothetical primitive state where all men are equal. This is not a chaotic anarchy, but a state of freedom in which people can choose whether to follow a certain set of laws rather than submit to the arbitrariness of others. Unlike Hobbes' cruel and lawless world, Locke had natural, God-given laws, even in the early stages of human society, that were recognized by all, at least at the level of principles. These laws forbade harming others, taking their lives, and trespassing on their property.

At a later stage in the development of society, people give up the personal exercise of justice because of the potential for bias to interfere with the process. They delegate this right to an independent person responsible for deciding questions of legality and criminality. This is how an independent judicial system emerges to resolve conflicts. By giving up the right to administer justice on their own, people enter into a social contract that becomes the basis of civil society. This covenant protects their lives and property by providing security and justice through a centralized justice system.

Conclusion

John Locke's ideas as expressed in his treatises were crucial in shaping the principles of modern democratic society. His criticism of absolutism and the concept of divine right of monarchs became the foundation for the assertion of natural human rights, including the right to liberty and self-government. Locke showed that power cannot be imposed from above but must come from the people through informed consent. 

These principles had a profound influence on the development of political philosophy and practice in the centuries that followed, inspiring movements for independence and human rights. His writings remain relevant today, reminding us of the importance of defending freedom and equality.

Read also the article about John Locke's views on economics.

Michael Barnes

Legal expert with 30 years of experience.