John Locke · Public domain edition · 159 cards · 42 chapters
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues that legitimate political power derives from the consent of the governed and that natural rights precede civil government. This deck covers Locke’s account of the state of nature, natural law, punishment, and the limits on individual and political authority.
1 / 159
Chapter 1 · Question
What four points does Locke say were shown in the preceding discourse?
WakeCards · wakecards.com · Big ideas. Quick review.
Chapter 1 · Answer
Locke summarizes four claims: Adam had no authority over his children or dominion over the world by natural fatherhood or divine donation; even if he had, his heirs had no right to it; even if they did, no law of nature or God determines the true heir in all cases, so succession could not be fixed; and even if it were fixed, knowledge of Adam's eldest line is utterly lost, leaving no family with a claim to be the eldest house.
WakeCards · wakecards.com · Big ideas. Quick review.
Arrow keys move between cards. Space or Enter flips.
All questions and answers
Every card in the deck, in reading order. Click a chapter to expand. The reviewer above uses the same content.
Section 14 cards
What four points does Locke say were shown in the preceding discourse?
Locke summarizes four claims: Adam had no authority over his children or dominion over the world by natural fatherhood or divine donation; even if he had, his heirs had no right to it; even if they did, no law of nature or God determines the true heir in all cases, so succession could not be fixed; and even if it were fixed, knowledge of Adam's eldest line is utterly lost, leaving no family with a claim to be the eldest house.
Chapter 1
Against whose doctrine is the Second Treatise directed, and why does Locke write against him?
Locke targets Sir Robert Filmer and his followers, whose false principles he says are detected and overthrown in the former treatise. He writes against Filmer because the pulpit had publicly adopted his doctrine as current divinity, and men who set themselves up as teachers had dangerously misled others by following this "Patriarch" blindly. Locke wants them either to retract what they preached on ill grounds or to justify it.
Chapter 1
What two conditions does Locke set for anyone who tries to confute his hypothesis?
Locke promises to recant upon fair conviction or answer his critic's difficulties, but the critic must remember two things: first, cavilling here and there at some expression or little incident of his discourse is not an answer to his book; second, he will not take railing for arguments, nor think either worth his notice. He remains bound to satisfy anyone conscientiously scrupulous who shows just grounds for scruples.
Chapter 1
What does Locke hope the surviving papers will accomplish, and what does he say of the lost middle portion?
Locke hopes the remaining papers suffice to establish the throne of King William, make good his title in the consent of the people, which he calls the only lawful basis of government, and justify the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights saved the nation from the brink of slavery and ruin. He says the fate of the lost middle papers is not worth telling, and he doubts he will fill the gap.
Chapter 1
Section 24 cards
How does Locke define political power in Section 3?
Locke defines political power as a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all lesser penalties, for regulating and preserving property, and of employing the community's force to execute such laws and defend the commonwealth from foreign injury—all only for the public good.
Chapter 2
What is the state of nature according to Locke?
Locke describes the state of nature as a state of perfect freedom to order one's actions and dispose of one's possessions and persons within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending on another's will. It is also a state of equality, where all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another.
Chapter 2
Why is the state of nature not a state of licence?
Although it is a state of liberty, Locke says it is not a state of licence: man may dispose of his person and possessions but has no liberty to destroy himself or any creature in his possession except where a nobler use calls for it. The law of nature, which is reason, obliges everyone, teaching that no one ought to harm another in life, health, liberty, or possessions.
Chapter 2
Who executes the law of nature in the state of nature?
Locke holds that the execution of the law of nature is put into every man's hands in that state, so each person has a right to punish transgressors to a degree that hinders violation of the law, preserving the innocent and restraining offenders. Since all are equal with no superiority, what any one may do in prosecution of that law, everyone has a right to do.
Chapter 2
Section 34 cards
In the state of nature, what limits one man's power to punish another?
Locke says the punisher may not act on passionate heat or boundless will, but only as calm reason and conscience dictate, proportionate to the transgression. Punishment has two lawful ends: reparation and restraint. The offender, by breaking the law of nature, becomes dangerous to mankind, so every man may restrain or destroy things noxious to all and be executioner of the law of nature.
Chapter 3
How does Locke answer the objection that men should not be judges in their own cases?
Locke grants civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies of the state of nature, where self-love and passion make men partial judges. But he replies that absolute monarchs are but men too: a ruler judging in his own case, with no one free to question him, is worse than the state of nature, where men need not submit to another's unjust will and the judge answers to the rest of mankind.
Chapter 3
What two distinct rights does Locke derive from a crime, and who holds each?
Locke separates the right of punishing the crime, to restrain it and prevent like offences, which belongs to everybody, from the right of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party. Hence a magistrate may often remit punishment where public good does not demand it, but cannot remit satisfaction due a private man; only the damaged person can remit that.
Chapter 3
Why may every man in the state of nature kill a murderer, according to Locke?
Locke argues a murderer has renounced reason, the common rule God gave mankind, and by unjust violence declared war against all mankind, so he may be destroyed like a lion or tiger with whom men can have no society or security. This deters others, since no reparation can compensate such injury, and secures men from the criminal's further attempts. Locke grounds it in the law that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Chapter 3
Section 44 cards
According to Locke, who remains in the state of nature, and what ends it?
Locke argues that all princes and rulers of independent governments worldwide are in a state of nature, so the world never lacks men in that state. He affirms all men are naturally in it until by their own consent they become members of some politic society. Only agreeing mutually to enter one community and make one body politic ends the state of nature; other compacts do not.
Chapter 4
What makes promises binding between men still in the state of nature?
Locke argues that promises and bargains, such as truck between two men on a desert island (from Garcilasso de la Vega's history of Peru) or between a Swiss and an Indian in the woods of America, bind those parties even though they remain perfectly in a state of nature toward one another. Truth and keeping of faith belong to men as men, not as members of society.
Chapter 4
What distinguishes the state of war from the state of nature for Locke?
Locke argues the two are as distant as peace and mutual preservation are from enmity and mutual destruction. The state of nature is men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth to judge between them. The state of war is force, or a declared design of force, upon another's person where there is no common superior to appeal to. Want of a common judge puts all men in the state of nature; force without right makes war.
Chapter 4
Why does attempting to enslave or rob someone create a state of war?
Locke argues that whoever attempts to get another into his absolute power declares a design upon his life, since he would use him as he pleased and destroy him at fancy. Freedom is the fence and foundation of preservation, so an attempt to enslave puts the aggressor in a state of war. Likewise a thief using force to get me in his power may lawfully be killed, since he allows no time to appeal to the law.
Chapter 4
Section 54 cards
According to Locke, when does the state of war cease between members of a society?
Locke argues the state of war ceases once actual force ends, because those in society are equally subject to the fair determination of law and have an open remedy of appeal for past injury and prevention of future harm. Where no such appeal exists, as in the state of nature for want of positive laws and judges, war once begun continues until the aggressor offers peace and reconciliation.
Chapter 5
What does Locke say about a legal remedy denied through perverted justice?
Locke argues that where appeal to law and constituted judges lies open but the remedy is denied by manifest perverting of justice and wresting of laws to protect injuries, it is hard to imagine anything but a state of war. Violence and injury remain so even under forms of law; sufferers with no appeal on earth are left to the only remedy, an appeal to heaven.
Chapter 5
How does Locke define freedom under government, against Filmer?
Locke argues freedom is not, as Sir Robert Filmer claims, a liberty for everyone to do what he lists and live as he pleases untied by laws. Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule common to everyone, made by the legislative power, and to follow one's own will where the rule prescribes not, free from another's inconstant, uncertain, arbitrary will.
Chapter 5
Why can no man by consent enslave himself to absolute arbitrary power?
Locke argues a man not having power over his own life cannot by compact or consent enslave himself to another's absolute arbitrary power, since nobody can give more power than he has and he who cannot take his own life cannot give another power over it. Only one who has forfeited his life by fault deserving death may be held in slavery, which is the state of war continued.
Chapter 5
Section 64 cards
According to Locke, how does a man acquire property in something from the common?
Locke argues that every man has property in his own person, and the labour of his body and work of his hands are properly his. Whatever he removes from the state nature left it in, he has mixed his labour with, joining something of his own, thereby making it his property. This excludes the common right of other men, at least where enough and as good is left in common for others.
Chapter 6
What limit does Locke place on how much a person may appropriate by labour?
Locke argues the same law of nature that gives property also bounds it. A person may fix property in as much as he can use to any advantage of life before it spoils; whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy.
Chapter 6
Does Locke require the express consent of all mankind to appropriate from the common?
No. Locke argues that if such consent were necessary, man would have starved despite the plenty God gave. The taking of any part of what is common and removing it from nature's state begins property, and this does not depend on the express consent of all commoners. He illustrates with grass a horse has bitten, turfs a servant cut, and ore dug.
Chapter 6
How does Locke say property in land is acquired?
Locke argues property in land is acquired as with fruits: as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of is his property. By labour he encloses it from the common. He says God commanded man to labour and subdue the earth, so a man's labour annexes something of his own that another cannot take without injury.
Chapter 6
Section 73 cards
Under what condition does Locke say enclosing land by labour wrongs no one?
Locke argues that appropriating land by improving it harms no one as long as enough land of equal quality remains for others, and more than the unprovided could use. He compares it to drinking from a river: no one is injured by another's draught when a whole river remains. Leaving as much as another can use is, in effect, taking nothing at all.
Chapter 7
Why does Locke say God gave the world to the industrious and rational?
Locke argues God gave the earth in common for men's benefit and convenience, not to remain forever uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, with labour as the title to it, not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. Whoever had as good land left for improvement ought not to meddle with what another's labour already improved.
Chapter 7
Why can common land in England not be enclosed without consent?
Locke explains that in countries with plenty of people under government, money, and commerce, common land is left common by compact—the law of the land—which must not be violated. No one may enclose part of it without the consent of all fellow-commoners, since it is the joint property of that country or parish. This differs from the first peopling of the world, where the law was rather for appropriating.
Chapter 7
Section 84 cards
Before money, how much wild fruit or game could a person rightfully claim?
Only as much as he could use before it spoiled. By placing his labour on natural products he acquired property in them, but if fruits rotted or venison putrefied in his possession unused, he offended against the common law of nature and was liable to punishment, since he had invaded his neighbour's share. His right extended only as far as his use called for.
Chapter 8
What happened to enclosed land whose grass or fruit was left to spoil?
It was still to be looked on as waste, despite the enclosure, and might become the possession of any other. The same measure governed land as governed wild products: whatever a man tilled, reaped, laid up and used before it spoiled was his peculiar right, but land he enclosed and could not use productively reverted in effect to common waste.
Chapter 8
According to Locke, what proportion of the value of useful products comes from labour?
The author argues that labour puts the difference of value on everything, and that nine tenths of the products of the earth useful to life are effects of labour; estimating more strictly, he says ninety-nine hundredths are wholly to be put on labour's account. He illustrates with an acre of planted land versus an acre lying in common without husbandry.
Chapter 8
How does Locke use the American Indians and English day-labourer to argue labour adds value?
The author argues that several nations of the Americans are rich in land but poor in comforts, having a fruitful soil yet lacking improvement by labour, so they enjoy not one hundredth part of English conveniencies; a king of a large fruitful territory there feeds, lodges and is clad worse than an English day-labourer. He concludes numbers of men are to be preferred to largeness of dominions.
Chapter 8
Section 94 cards
According to Locke, what limits the rightful amount of property one may gather?
Locke holds that a person may gather as much as he can use before it spoils; whatever he alters by his labour becomes his property. Gathering more than he can consume before it perishes means he took more than his share and robbed others. Bartering perishables for more durable goods, or for metal or shells kept for life, does not invade others' rights, since the limit is spoilage, not the size of the possession.
Chapter 9
Why does Locke say the invention of money lets men enlarge their possessions?
Locke argues money is a lasting thing men can keep without spoiling, taken by mutual consent in exchange for perishable supports of life. Because gold and silver do not decay, a man may fairly possess more land than he can use the product of, receiving durable metal for the overplus. This tacit agreement, not compact, makes unequal private possessions practicable.
Chapter 9
In Locke's island example, why would no one enlarge his landholdings without money?
Locke supposes an island cut off from all commerce, with land enough for a hundred thousand times the hundred families there, but nothing lasting and scarce to serve as money. Without something valuable to hoard, men would not enlarge their possessions of land, since surplus product could not be sold for money. Land beyond family needs would be worthless, so they would let it revert to the wild common.
Chapter 9
How does Locke explain unequal private possessions arising without explicit compact?
Locke argues that since gold and silver have value only from men's consent and are little useful to life compared with food and clothing, men have tacitly and voluntarily agreed to unequal possessions. By putting value on durable metals, a man may fairly possess more land than he can use, receiving gold and silver for the overplus without injury to anyone. Within governments, however, laws and positive constitutions regulate property.
Chapter 9
Section 103 cards
Why does Locke prefer 'parental power' over 'paternal power'?
Locke argues that calling it paternal power wrongly places all authority over children in the father, as if the mother had no share. Consulting reason or revelation, he says the mother has an equal title, since children are bound equally to both concurrent causes of their generation. He notes Scripture consistently commands children to honor and obey both father and mother, so the term should be 'parental power.'
Chapter 10
What kind of equality does Locke claim all men have by nature?
Locke clarifies he does not mean equality in all respects: age, virtue, excellence of parts, merit, birth, alliance, or benefits may give some men just precedence or claim observance from others. The equality he means concerns jurisdiction or dominion — every man's equal right to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of another man.
Chapter 10
According to Locke, what is the true end of law?
Locke argues the end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom. Where there is no law there is no freedom, because liberty means freedom from restraint and violence by others. But freedom is not license for every man to do what he lists; it is liberty to order one's person, actions, possessions, and property within the allowance of the laws, not subject to another's arbitrary will.
Chapter 10
Section 114 cards
According to Locke, what is the source of parents' power over their children?
Locke argues parental power arises from the duty incumbent on parents to care for their offspring during the imperfect state of childhood—to inform their minds and govern their actions until reason takes its place. It is a trust for the child's good, not a regal authority, and it ends when the child reaches the estate of reason that made the father free.
Chapter 11
When does a son become free from his father's authority, according to Locke?
Locke argues the son becomes free at the same state of maturity that made the father free: an age of discretion wherein he is presumed capable of knowing the law guiding him. Under the law of England this is supposed at one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. After that, father and son are equally free subjects of the same law.
Chapter 11
How does Locke treat lunatics and idiots regarding freedom?
Locke argues that persons who, through defects outside the ordinary course of nature, never attain the degree of reason needed to know the law are never capable of being free men. They are never let loose to their own will, since they know no bounds to it, but remain under the tuition and government of others as long as their understanding is incapable of that charge.
Chapter 11
How does Locke use the infant heir of a monarch to argue against Filmer?
Locke argues that even if Filmer's absolute monarch existed and died when his heir was born, the infant heir—though free and sovereign by title—must still be subject to mother, nurse, tutors, and governors until age and education bring reason. This subjection does not destroy his liberty or sovereignty; it only prepares him for it, showing parental government and freedom are consistent.
Chapter 11
Section 124 cards
According to Locke, what grounds human freedom and liberty of acting?
Locke grounds freedom on reason, which instructs a person in the law he should govern himself by and shows how far his own will may extend. Turning someone loose to unrestrained liberty before he has reason is not granting a natural privilege but abandoning him to a wretched state beneath that of a man. This is why parents hold authority over children during their minority.
Chapter 12
What limits the father's power over his children in Locke's account?
Locke argues paternal power is only a temporary guardianship tied to nourishment and education, not an absolute dominion. It ends when children reach the years of discretion, and it never extends to their lives, property, or liberty. The mother shares this power equally, and a foster-father of an exposed child holds it as much as a natural father.
Chapter 12
How does Locke distinguish the power of tuition from the honour due parents?
Locke separates two things: the temporary government a father holds during a child's minority, which ends with minority, and the perpetual honour children owe parents, which lasts all their lives. Honour includes respect, gratitude, support, and compliance, but it is not absolute obedience or lawmaking power. A monarch on his throne still owes his mother honour without losing authority.
Chapter 12
Why does Locke deny that begetting alone gives a father power over his children?
Locke argues paternal power belongs to the father only as guardian, annexed to nourishment and education, not to the bare act of begetting. If his care ends there, his title ends too. He cites cases where children follow the mother after separation, where a mother takes over if the father dies, and where one woman has several husbands, to show nature grants no peculiar paternal right.
Chapter 12
Section 134 cards
According to Locke, when does a father's power of education over his children end?
Locke argues that the educational part of paternal power, which he calls a duty, terminates at a certain season: once the business of education is over, it ceases of itself. It is also alienable before that point, since a father may place his son's tuition in other hands, as by apprenticeship, which discharges the son from a great part of obedience to both parents during that time.
Chapter 13
Does the duty of honour children owe parents ever end, and can it be transferred?
Locke holds that the duty of honour remains entire to both parents and nothing can cancel it. It is so inseparable from them that the father's authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any man discharge a son from honouring the mother who bore him. This honour, respect, support and defence is always due, though it grants no sovereign power of command.
Chapter 13
What power does a father have over his grown son's property and actions?
Locke argues that the power of commanding ends with nonage. After that, honour, respect, support and defence remain due, but they put no scepter into the father's hand and no sovereign power of commanding. The father has no dominion over his son's property or actions, nor any right that his will should prescribe to his son's in all things, though deference may often be fitting.
Chapter 13
Why does Locke say paternal and political power are distinct?
Locke argues the two powers are perfectly distinct and separate, built on different foundations and given to different ends. If all political power were merely paternal, then a subject could naturally have none of it once the prince held all paternal power. Instead, every subject who is a father has paternal power over his children, and every prince with parents owes them filial duty like the meanest subject.
Chapter 13
Section 144 cards
According to Locke, by what right did fathers first become political rulers of their families?
Locke argues it was not by paternal right but by the express or tacit consent of grown children. Accustomed to their father's direction in childhood, they willingly continued his rule, permitting him alone to exercise the executive power of the law of nature within the family. Locke proves this because a father could punish a stranger who killed his child, which paternal authority alone could not justify.
Chapter 14
What example does Locke use to show paternal power is not the source of a father's authority?
Locke argues that if a stranger brought into the family by chance or business killed one of the children, the father could condemn and put him to death or otherwise punish him, just as he could his own children. This could not flow from paternal authority over a non-child, but only from the executive power of the law of nature that every free man has.
Chapter 14
Why did grown children accept their father's continued rule, according to Locke?
Locke argues children had been accustomed in childhood to follow their father's direction and refer their little differences to him. Their small properties and lesser covetousness seldom produced greater controversies, and he was the fittest umpire, having sustained and raised them with tenderness for all. His government felt more like protection than restraint, so they had no desire to leave it.
Chapter 14
How does Locke rebut the argument that princes rule by natural paternal right?
Locke says if finding rulers de facto in fathers' hands proves paternal right to political authority, the same argument proves all princes, nay princes only, ought to be priests, since the father of the family was as certainly priest as ruler. In the footnote he cites Hooker, who held the household head was as it were a king, yet also that all public regiment arose from deliberate advice and composition among men.
Chapter 14
Section 154 cards
According to Locke, why is the conjugal bond longer in humans than in other creatures?
Locke argues the chief reason is that the human female may conceive again and bear a new child long before the former is able to support himself. The father, bound to care for the children he has begotten, must therefore continue in conjugal society longer than other creatures, whose young can subsist before the time of procreation returns.
Chapter 15
What power does Locke say the husband has over his wife, and what limits it?
Locke argues that because husband and wife may have different wills, the final determination naturally falls to the man as the abler and stronger. But this reaches only things of their common interest and property; the wife keeps full possession of what by contract is her peculiar right, and the husband has no more power over her life than she has over his.
Chapter 15
How does Locke distinguish a freeman servant from a slave?
Locke says a freeman makes himself a servant by selling, for a certain time, the service he undertakes in exchange for wages; this gives the master only a temporary power, no greater than the contract contains. Slaves, by contrast, are captives taken in a just war, subjected by the right of nature to absolute dominion, having forfeited their lives and liberties and being incapable of property.
Chapter 15
Why does Locke deny that a family is a little commonwealth or absolute monarchy?
Locke argues the master of a family has distinct and differently limited power over each member. Excepting the slave, he has no legislative power of life and death over any of them, and none that a mistress of the family might not have too. Whoever has only a limited power over each individual cannot have absolute power over the whole family.
Chapter 15
Section 164 cards
According to Locke, what defines political or civil society?
Locke argues political society exists only where every member has quit their natural power to judge and punish offenses and resigned it to the community. The community becomes umpire through settled standing rules applied indifferently to all parties, with authorized men executing those rules and deciding differences. Those with no common appeal on earth remain in the state of nature, each judging and executing for himself.
Chapter 16
What two powers does the commonwealth gain, and for what end?
The commonwealth gains power to set punishments for transgressions among members, which is the power of making laws, and power to punish injuries done by outsiders, which is the power of war and peace. Locke says all this serves preserving the property of all members as far as possible. Members also grant the commonwealth a right to employ their force when called upon.
Chapter 16
Why does Locke argue absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society?
Locke argues the end of civil society is to remedy the inconvenience of every man being judge in his own case by setting up a known authority everyone may appeal to. An absolute prince holds all legislative and executive power alone, so no impartial judge or appeal exists against injuries from him. Such a prince remains in the state of nature with his subjects.
Chapter 16
What does Locke say is the 'woful difference' for subjects of an absolute prince?
Locke argues that in the ordinary state of nature a person may judge of his right and defend it as best he can. But under an absolute prince, when his property is invaded by the monarch's will, he has no appeal as society members should, and is denied even the liberty to judge of or defend his right, exposed to one unrestrained in the state of nature yet armed with power.
Chapter 16
Section 173 cards
According to Locke, what happens to the security of subjects under an absolute ruler?
Locke argues that in absolute monarchies subjects have law and judges to settle disputes among themselves, but have no appeal on earth against the ruler's violence. He says asking for safety from the ruler is branded faction and rebellion, as if men agreed all but one should be bound by laws while he retains the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power and made licentious by impunity.
Chapter 17
What does Locke say about the claim that absolute power purifies human nature?
Locke rejects it: whoever thinks absolute power purifies men's blood and corrects the baseness of human nature need only read the history of this or any other age to be convinced otherwise. A man who would be insolent and injurious in the woods of America would not likely be better on a throne, where learning and religion may justify whatever he does to his subjects.
Chapter 17
Why does Locke doubt that rulers protect subjects out of love for mankind?
Locke argues that a ruler's care to keep subjects from hurting one another is no more than what any man who loves his own power, profit, or greatness naturally must do, keeping those who labor for his advantage from destroying each other. They are taken care of not out of love the master has for them, but love of himself and the profit they bring him.
Chapter 17
Section 184 cards
For Locke, what alone can remove a man from his natural state of freedom and equality?
Locke holds that men are by nature free, equal, and independent, so no one can be removed from that estate and subjected to another's political power without his own consent. The only way a person gives up natural liberty and takes on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with others to unite into a community for safe, peaceable living and secure enjoyment of property.
Chapter 18
Once men consent to form a community, who has the right to act for the whole?
When any number of men consent to make one community or government, they are thereby incorporated into one body politic, and the majority has the right to act and conclude the rest. Locke reasons that a body must move one way, carried by the greater force, which is the majority's consent; otherwise it cannot act or continue as one body.
Chapter 18
Why does Locke reject the requirement of every individual's consent for each act?
Locke argues that if majority consent were not received as the act of the whole, nothing but every individual's consent could make anything the act of the whole. That is next to impossible, given illness, business, varied opinions, and clashing interests. Such a constitution would dissolve society immediately, lasting shorter than the feeblest creature.
Chapter 18
How does Locke answer the objection that history shows no men founding government by consent?
Locke replies that it is no wonder history records little of men in the state of nature, since the inconveniences of that condition soon brought them together to unite. Government precedes records and letters, so commonwealths, like persons, are commonly ignorant of their own births. The histories we have, except that of the Jews, show such beginnings or manifest footsteps of them.
Chapter 18
Section 193 cards
What historical examples does Locke cite to show societies began by voluntary union?
Locke cites Rome and Venice as founded by free and independent men uniting with no natural superiority among them. He also invokes Josephus Acosta's account that many parts of America had no government at all, and Justin's mention of those who left Sparta with Palantus as freemen who set up government by their own consent.
Chapter 19
Why does Locke think early governments commonly began in the father?
Locke suggests that where a numerous family subsisted alone amid much land and few people, government commonly began in the father. By natural law he had power to punish offences, even against grown children, who likely submitted and joined against offenders, effectively making him lawmaker and governor. He was fittest to be trusted, and childhood habit made obedience easier.
Chapter 19
How does Locke explain elective monarchy without conceding paternal right?
Locke concedes that looking back through history, commonwealths generally appear under one man's government, and the father's pre-eminence may have placed power in one hand at first. But he argues what continued single-person rule was not regard for paternal authority, since all petty monarchies near their origin have commonly been, at least on occasion, elective.
Chapter 19
Section 204 cards
Why did early peoples naturally adopt monarchy, according to Locke?
The author argues that paternal government in childhood accustomed people to rule by one man, which they found easy and safe. Monarchy was simple and obvious to men not yet instructed by experience in other forms, and they had not felt tyranny nor had possessions or ambitions that gave reason to guard against absolute power.
Chapter 20
What was the main concern driving early societies to unite, per Locke?
The author argues their first care was security against foreign force rather than internal regulation. Since those joining in society already had acquaintance, friendship, and mutual trust, they feared outsiders more than one another. So they chose government best suited to defense and picked the wisest and bravest man to lead them in war.
Chapter 20
How does Locke describe the kings of the Indians in America?
He says they are little more than generals of their armies, a pattern of the first ages. They command absolutely in war, but in peace exercise very little dominion and only moderate sovereignty, with peace and war usually decided by the people or a council. War itself, admitting no plurality of governors, devolves command into the king's sole authority.
Chapter 20
How does Locke use Jephtha and Israel's judges to illustrate early kingship?
The author argues the chief business of judges and first kings was to be captains in war. Jephtha was made head and captain over Israel and judged Israel, meaning he was captain-general six years. Gideon is praised only for fighting, Abimelech is called king though at most a general, and Saul was anointed captain to save Israel from the Philistines.
Chapter 20
Section 214 cards
According to Locke, what motivated the first commonwealths to entrust rule to one man?
Locke argues that the first founders of commonwealths generally put rule into one man's hand without express limitation, because of the need for a general to defend them against enemies in war and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity of that poor but virtuous age gave men in one another. He insists nobody was entrusted with power except for the public good and safety.
Chapter 21
Why did men eventually find it necessary to examine the original and rights of government?
Locke argues that in the golden age there was no stretching prerogative to oppress the people and no dispute about privilege. But when ambition and luxury in future ages sought to retain and increase power without doing the business for which it was given, and flattery taught princes to have separate interests from their people, men found it necessary to examine government's original and rights and restrain abuses.
Chapter 21
What is Locke's reply to the objection that men born under government can never be free to begin a new one?
Locke replies that the objection proves too much: if anyone born under dominion can be free to command others in a new empire, then everyone born under dominion may be equally free. So either all men however born are free, or there is but one lawful prince and government in the world — which his opponents must then identify. He also cites frequent history of men withdrawing from their birth jurisdiction to set up new governments.
Chapter 21
How does Locke use the multitude of petty commonwealths as evidence against paternal sovereignty?
Locke argues that history, sacred and profane, frequently shows men withdrawing themselves and their obedience from the jurisdiction they were born under and setting up new governments elsewhere. From this sprang the many petty commonwealths at the beginning of ages, multiplying until stronger ones swallowed weaker. He says this proves governments were not made by paternal right descending to heirs, since that ground would allow only one universal monarchy.
Chapter 21
Section 224 cards
According to Locke, can a father bind his children by his own compact?
No. Locke argues that whatever engagements or promises a man makes for himself bind only him; a father cannot by any compact bind his children or posterity. A son, when a man, is as free as the father, so any act of the father can no more give away the son's liberty than anyone else's. A father may, however, annex conditions to his land, obliging a son who wishes to enjoy that estate to join the community.
Chapter 22
What does Locke say about the nationality of a child born to an English subject in France?
Locke argues the child is a subject of neither the king of England nor the king of France. He is not English because he needs leave to be admitted to its privileges; not French because his father may take him away and raise him as he pleases. Locke concludes a child is born a subject of no country or government, remaining under parental authority until the age of discretion.
Chapter 22
What counts as tacit consent to a government, and how far does it bind?
Locke argues that anyone who has any possessions or enjoyment of any part of a government's dominions gives tacit consent and is obliged to obey its laws during that enjoyment. This covers land held to him and his heirs, a lodging for only a week, or merely travelling freely on the highway; it reaches as far as one's very being within the territories.
Chapter 22
How does tacit consent differ from express consent in its duration?
Locke argues that the obligation from tacit consent, based on enjoying land or territory, begins and ends with that enjoyment; the owner may sell or give up the possession and go incorporate himself into another commonwealth or start a new one in vacant places. By contrast, one who has given express consent by actual agreement is perpetually and indispensably obliged to remain a subject, unless the government is dissolved or a public act cuts him off.
Chapter 22
Section 233 cards
According to Locke, what alone makes a man a member of a commonwealth?
Locke argues that merely living under a country's laws, enjoying its privileges and protection, does not make a man a member of that society—foreigners who live all their lives under another government remain non-members. Nothing can make a man a subject or member, he claims, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement and express promise and compact.
Chapter 23
What three things does Locke say are wanting in the state of nature?
Locke lists three deficiencies: first, there is no established, settled, known law received by common consent to serve as the standard of right and wrong; second, there is no known and indifferent judge with authority to decide differences; third, there often is no power to back and support the sentence when right and give it due execution.
Chapter 23
What two powers does man give up when joining a political society?
Locke says man in the state of nature has two powers: to do what he thinks fit for preserving himself and others within the law of nature, and to punish crimes committed against that law. Joining a commonwealth, he gives the first up to be regulated by society's laws, and wholly gives up the second to assist the executive power.
Chapter 23
Section 244 cards
According to Locke, what three things must a supreme power provide to govern legitimately?
Locke says whoever holds legislative or supreme power is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges who decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the community's force at home only to execute such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from invasion. All is directed to the peace, safety, and public good of the people.
Chapter 24
How does Locke define the form of government and classify its types?
The form depends on where the legislative (supreme) power is placed. If the majority keeps all power to make and execute laws through their own officers, it is a perfect democracy; if lawmaking goes to a few select men and their heirs, an oligarchy; to one man and his heirs, hereditary monarchy; to one man for life with the community nominating a successor, elective monarchy. Communities may also make compounded and mixed forms.
Chapter 24
What does Locke mean by "commonwealth," and why does he insist on the term?
Locke says by commonwealth he means not a democracy or any specific form of government, but any independent community—what the Latins called civitas. He prefers "commonwealth" because "community" or "city" in English does not properly express such a society; there may be subordinate communities within a government, and "city" carries a quite different notion. He cites King James I's usage as genuine and invites anyone to substitute a better word.
Chapter 24
Why can the legislative power not be absolutely arbitrary over lives and fortunes?
Locke argues the legislative is only the joint power of every member given up to the community, and no one can transfer more power than he has. In the state of nature no one has arbitrary power over his own life or another's; he has only what the law of nature allows for preservation. So the legislative's power is limited to the public good, and can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly impoverish subjects.
Chapter 24
Section 254 cards
Why must the legislative power govern by promulgated standing laws rather than arbitrary decrees?
Locke argues the law of nature is unwritten and found only in men's minds, so those who miscite or misapply it through passion or interest cannot easily be corrected without an established judge. In the state of nature each person is judge, interpreter, and executioner in his own case, and the party with right usually lacks force to defend himself. Men therefore unite to gain the united strength of society and standing rules bounding property.
Chapter 25
Why does Locke say absolute arbitrary power puts people in a worse condition than the state of nature?
In the state of nature people retain liberty to defend their right against injuries and stand on equal terms of force. By submitting to an absolute arbitrary legislator they disarm themselves and arm him to prey on them at will. Locke says one man commanding 100,000 is worse than exposure to 100,000 single men, since no one is secure that such a ruler's will is better than others'.
Chapter 25
What does Locke mean by saying the supreme power cannot take property without consent?
Since preservation of property is the end of government and the reason men enter society, the people must be supposed to have property; otherwise they would lose by entering society the very thing they entered it for, which Locke calls too gross an absurdity. He argues one has no property in what another may rightfully take against one's consent, so the legislative cannot dispose of subjects' estates arbitrarily.
Chapter 25
Where does Locke see the greatest danger of rulers seizing property, and why?
Locke says the danger is less where the legislative sits wholly or partly in variable assemblies whose members become ordinary subjects under common law when dissolved. But where the legislative is one lasting assembly always in being, or one man as in absolute monarchies, rulers may think they have a distinct interest from the community and be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking from the people.
Chapter 25
Section 264 cards
According to Locke, can a prince or senate take subjects' property without consent?
No. Locke argues that government is entrusted with securing men's properties, and though it may regulate property among subjects by law, it can never take the whole or any part of subjects' property without their own consent, since that would in effect leave them no property at all.
Chapter 26
How does Locke use martial discipline to show absolute power is not arbitrary?
Locke argues that even absolute power is limited by the reason and ends that required it. A sergeant may order a soldier into near-certain death and a general may execute him for desertion, yet neither can take a penny or farthing of the soldier's estate, because disposing of his goods has nothing to do with preserving the army.
Chapter 26
What does Locke say about taxes and the consent of the people?
Locke argues governments need revenue and everyone enjoying protection should pay a proportion of his estate, but only with his own consent — the consent of the majority, given by themselves or their representatives. Anyone claiming to levy taxes by his own authority without that consent invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government.
Chapter 26
What four bounds does Locke set on the legislative power?
Locke lists four: govern by promulgated established laws, with one rule for rich and poor; design laws ultimately for the good of the people; raise no taxes on property without the people's consent given by themselves or deputies; and never transfer the power of making laws to anyone else, since it is only a delegated power from the people.
Chapter 26
Section 274 cards
What two powers does Locke distinguish in Sections 146-147?
Locke distinguishes the executive power, which executes municipal laws within the society upon its members, from the federative power, which manages security and interest abroad with all persons and communities outside the commonwealth, covering war, peace, leagues, and alliances. He says the name does not matter so long as the thing is understood.
Chapter 27
Why can the federative power be less bound by standing laws?
Locke argues the federative power is much less capable of direction by antecedent, standing, positive laws than the executive, because what is done regarding foreigners depends on their actions and shifting designs and interests. It must therefore be left largely to the prudence and wisdom of those entrusted with it, managed for the public good.
Chapter 27
Why does Locke say executive and federative power are hardly separable?
Though really distinct in themselves, Locke holds they are hardly to be separated and placed at the same time in distinct persons, because both require the force of the society. Placing that force in distinct, non-subordinate hands, or letting the two powers act separately, would put public force under different commands and is apt to cause disorder and ruin.
Chapter 27
Who holds supreme power, and when may the people remove the legislative?
Locke argues the legislative is supreme in all cases while government subsists, yet it is only a fiduciary power for certain ends. The people retain a supreme power to remove or alter it when it acts contrary to that trust; this power takes place only when the government is dissolved, and no one may deliver up their preservation to arbitrary dominion.
Chapter 27
Section 284 cards
Why must the executive power always be in being, unlike the legislative?
Locke argues the legislative need not always be in being, nor is it convenient that it should be. But the executive must always exist, because there is not always need of new laws to be made, yet there is always need of execution of the laws already made. The legislative retains power to resume execution from other hands and punish maladministration.
Chapter 28
What happens if the executive uses force to prevent the legislative from meeting?
Locke states that using force upon the people without authority, contrary to the trust placed in the executive, is a state of war with the people. The people then have a right to reinstate their legislative by force. In all states and conditions, the true remedy of force without authority is to oppose force to it, treating the aggressor accordingly.
Chapter 28
Does the executive's power to convoke and dissolve the legislative make it superior?
No. Locke argues this power is a fiduciary trust placed in the executive for the safety of the people, not an arbitrary power depending on his good pleasure. It exists because the uncertainty of human affairs could not bear a steady fixed rule. Though the executive may have this prerogative, it is not thereby superior to the legislative.
Chapter 28
What problem arises over time with representation, and why is it hard to remedy?
Locke argues that as people, riches, and trade shift, representation can become unequal and disproportionate to its original reasons. A decayed town with barely a shepherd may send as many representatives as a populous, wealthy county. Because the legislative's constitution is the original supreme act depending wholly on the people, no inferior power can alter it, making the remedy hard.
Chapter 28
Section 294 cards
According to Locke, what is prerogative?
Locke defines prerogative as the executive's power to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of law and sometimes even against it. It exists because legislatures cannot foresee all accidents and necessities, are often not in session, and are too numerous and slow for swift execution, so a latitude is left to the executive to do things of choice the laws do not prescribe.
Chapter 29
When does Locke say prerogative is never questioned by the people?
Locke argues prerogative is undoubted and never questioned while it is employed for the benefit of the community and suitably to the trust and ends of government. The people are seldom scrupulous about it while it is tolerably used for their good. But if a dispute arises between executive and people over a claimed prerogative, its tendency to the good or hurt of the people decides the question.
Chapter 29
Why did the people limit prerogative by positive laws?
Locke explains that in the infancy of governments, rule was almost all prerogative, with few laws and rulers acting as fathers. When mistake or flattery led weak princes to use that power for private ends rather than the public good, the people were forced to get prerogative determined by express laws in the points where they found disadvantage. Locke argues this is not encroachment but a declaration of the power's original trust.
Chapter 29
What does Locke call the wrong notion of government regarding prerogative?
Locke says those who claim the people encroach on prerogative when they define part of it by positive laws hold a very wrong notion of government. In doing so the people take nothing that of right belonged to the prince; they only declare that power left for their good was not intended for other uses. Locke argues this view assumes the prince has an interest separate from the community's good, the root of evils in kingly governments.
Chapter 29
Section 304 cards
According to Locke, what is prerogative?
Locke defines prerogative as the people's permission for rulers to act of their own free choice where the law is silent, and sometimes against the direct letter of the law, for the public good, with the people's acquiescence. He sums it up as nothing but the power of doing public good without a rule, and argues a good prince cannot have too much of it.
Chapter 30
Why does Locke say good princes' reigns are most dangerous to liberty?
Locke explains that successors of good princes draw those rulers' extralegal actions into precedent, treating what was done only for the people's good as a right to act for their harm. This has often caused contest and sometimes public disorders before the people could recover their original right and have it declared not to be prerogative.
Chapter 30
Who judges whether prerogative is used rightly, per Locke?
Locke says that between an executive with prerogative and a legislative that depends on his will for convening, there can be no judge on earth, just as none exists between legislative and people. The people's only remedy is to appeal to heaven, judging whether they have just cause, a judgment they cannot part with since God and nature forbid a man to abandon his own preservation.
Chapter 30
How does Locke define paternal power and its limits?
Locke defines paternal power as parents' power to govern children for the children's good until they reach the use of reason or knowledge to govern themselves by the law of nature or municipal law. It is not severe or arbitrary, does not extend to life and death, ends when the child becomes a man, and never reaches the child's property, which is only in his own disposing.
Chapter 30
Section 314 cards
What three kinds of power does Locke distinguish, and what gives rise to each?
Locke distinguishes paternal, political, and despotical power. Nature gives paternal power to parents for children's benefit during minority. Voluntary agreement gives political power to governors for subjects' benefit, to secure their properties. Forfeiture gives despotical power to lords over those stripped of all property. He defines property as including persons as well as goods.
Chapter 31
Why can despotical power not arise from compact, according to Locke?
Locke argues despotical power is absolute, arbitrary power over another's life, which neither nature nor compact can convey. Since man has no arbitrary power over his own life, he cannot grant it to another. It arises only from forfeiture, when an aggressor puts himself in a state of war. Captives taken in a just war alone are subject to it, and once compact enters, slavery ceases.
Chapter 31
What is Locke's argument that conquest alone cannot establish a legitimate government?
The author argues conquest is as far from setting up government as demolishing a house is from building a new one in its place. It may clear the way by destroying the former frame, but without the people's consent it can never erect a new one. An unjust aggressor gains no right over the conquered, just as a robber with a dagger gains no title.
Chapter 31
How does Locke compare an unjust conqueror to a common robber?
Locke argues the injury and crime are equal whether committed by a crowned head or a petty villain; the offender's title and number of followers make no difference except to aggravate it. A robber forcing deeds at dagger-point gains no title, and neither does an unjust conqueror. The only difference is that great robbers punish little ones and are rewarded with laurels.
Chapter 31
Section 323 cards
Under Locke, over whom does a conqueror in a just war gain power?
Locke argues the conqueror gains power only over those who actually assisted, concurred, or consented to the unjust force used against him. People who did not join the war—by infancy, absence, or choice—are innocent and forfeit nothing. Conquest gives no power over those who fought on the conqueror's own side, who remain freemen.
Chapter 32
What alone puts a man into a state of war, according to Locke?
Locke argues it is the unjust use of force, not damage alone. Whether a man begins injury by force, or quietly does injury by fraud and then maintains it by force, the result is the same. In a state with no common judge on earth, the guilty party quits reason and becomes liable to be destroyed like a dangerous beast.
Chapter 32
Can a father's guilt in war forfeit his children's goods?
Locke argues no: the father's miscarriages forfeit only his own life and do not involve his children in guilt or destruction. His goods still belong to his children, who did nothing to forfeit them if they did not join the war through infancy, absence, or choice. The conqueror may claim goods only to repair damages sustained.
Chapter 32
Section 334 cards
After a just conquest, what may the conqueror take from the vanquished?
The conqueror may take the vanquished man's life, since it is at his mercy, and may appropriate his service and goods to make reparation for damages. He cannot take the goods of the wife and children, because they had their own title to shares in the estate and did not forfeit anything by a war they neither made nor assisted in.
Chapter 33
When reparation and children's maintenance cannot both be fully satisfied, who yields?
Locke answers that the fundamental law of nature requires all to be preserved as much as possible. If there is not enough to satisfy both the conqueror's losses and the children's maintenance, the one who has and to spare must remit something of his full satisfaction and give way to the pressing and preferable title of those in danger to perish without it.
Chapter 33
Why can war damages rarely justify seizing a conquered country?
Locke argues the spoils of war usually amount only to a year's or two of product, seldom four or five, and money is of fantastical imaginary value with no basis in nature. Five years' product is not worth the perpetual inheritance of land where all is possessed and none lies waste, so no damage in the state of nature gives a conqueror power to dispossess the vanquished's posterity.
Chapter 33
Do promises extorted by force bind the subdued to obey a conqueror?
Locke says they bind not at all. Whatever another gets from me by force I still retain the right to, and he is obliged to restore it, just as one who forces my horse or my purse at pistol-point must give it back. The law of nature cannot oblige me through violation of its own rules, so a government imposed by force has no obligation upon those against whom the conqueror had no right of war.
Chapter 33
Section 344 cards
Under Locke, does a conqueror's absolute power extend to the children of the conquered?
No. Locke argues a father has no power over his child's life or liberty, so no act of his can forfeit it. Children in their minority remain freemen whatever happened to their fathers; the conqueror's absolute power reaches only the persons of the subdued men and dies with them. He can gain power over the children only by their own consent, not by force.
Chapter 34
What double right does Locke say every man is born with?
First, a right of freedom to his person, which no other man has power over, but the free disposal of it lies in himself. Second, a right, before any other man, to inherit with his brethren his father's goods. By the first a man is naturally free from subjection to any government, even one in whose jurisdiction he was born.
Chapter 34
When may a people justly cast off a government imposed by force?
Locke argues that descendants of those forced to submit retain a right to their ancestors' possessions and may shake off the usurpation or tyranny brought by the sword, until rulers put them under a government they willingly consent to. He cites the Grecian Christians under the Turkish yoke as an example of a people who may justly cast it off when opportunity allows.
Chapter 34
What limits does Locke place on a conqueror's right over land he grants?
Even granting a just conqueror a right to the conquered's estates, no absolute power follows. If he grants land to heirs forever or for life under rent, the grantees have property in it that cannot be taken without their consent. Otherwise all free and voluntary contracts cease and grants become mockery, since power alone could dissolve them.
Chapter 34
Section 354 cards
How does Locke distinguish usurpation from tyranny?
Locke defines usurpation as exercising power that another has a right to, and tyranny as exercising power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. Usurpation, so far as it is usurpation, changes only the persons holding power, not the forms and rules of government. If a usurper extends power beyond what belonged to lawful governors, that is tyranny added to usurpation.
Chapter 35
What makes someone an usurper with no right to be obeyed?
Locke argues that whoever gains the exercise of any part of public power by ways other than those the community's laws prescribe has no right to be obeyed, even if the form of the commonwealth is preserved. Such a person is not whom the laws appointed, and so not whom the people consented to. Neither the usurper nor anyone deriving from him can have title until the people are free to consent and actually do consent.
Chapter 35
According to Locke, where does tyranny begin and can it be opposed?
Locke argues that wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law is transgressed to another's harm. Whoever in authority exceeds the power the law gives him and uses force against a subject beyond what law allows ceases in that to be a magistrate and may be opposed as any other man who by force invades another's right. Locke says this holds for the highest magistrate as for subordinate ones.
Chapter 35
How does Locke use King James I's speeches to define a tyrant?
Locke cites James I's 1603 and 1609 parliamentary speeches to show a king differs from a tyrant in that a rightful king is ordained for the wealth and property of his people, while a tyrant thinks kingdom and people exist only to satisfy his desires. James says a king in a settled kingdom degenerates into a tyrant as soon as he stops ruling according to his laws. Locke concludes the difference lies in whether law or will bounds power.
Chapter 35
Section 364 cards
According to Locke, what kind of force may lawfully be opposed?
Locke answers that force is to be opposed to nothing but unjust and unlawful force. Anyone who resists in any other case draws on himself just condemnation from both God and man. He argues this limitation means no such danger or confusion as critics suggest will follow from allowing resistance.
Chapter 36
When may an inferior officer acting under the king's commission be resisted?
Locke argues that although the prince's person may be sacred by law, opposition may still be made to illegal acts of inferior officers or others commissioned by him. The king's commission excuses no one, since the king's authority comes only from law and cannot authorize acting against it. The exception is if the prince puts himself into a state of war with his people.
Chapter 36
Why does Locke say deadly force is lawful against a highway robber but not a debtor?
Locke argues force is only lawful where a man is intercepted from appealing to the law. The highwayman who threatens life leaves no time to appeal, and the loss of life is irreparable, so he may lawfully be killed. The man who refuses to return 100 pounds does not endanger life, so the injured party may seek reparation through law instead.
Chapter 36
When does Locke say resistance may spread beyond a few oppressed men?
Locke argues resistance by a few private men will not easily disturb a settled government, since the body of the people will not follow them. But if illegal acts extend to the majority, or threaten all through precedent and consequence, and people are persuaded in conscience that their laws, estates, liberties, lives, or religion are in danger, he cannot tell how they will be hindered from resisting.
Chapter 36
Section 373 cards
According to Locke, what is the usual and almost only way a political society is dissolved?
Locke states the usual and almost only way the union of a community is dissolved is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest. Unable to maintain themselves as one independent body, members return to the state they were in before, free to provide for their own safety in some other society. When society is dissolved, its government cannot remain.
Chapter 37
For Locke, what happens when persons without the people's appointment make laws?
Locke argues that when one or more persons take upon themselves to make laws whom the people have not appointed, they make laws without authority, and the people are not bound to obey. By this means the people come again to be out of subjection and may constitute a new legislative as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those imposing without authority.
Chapter 37
How does Locke define alteration of the legislative in Sections 214 and 215?
Locke argues the legislative is changed when the prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws enacted by the legislative, introducing new laws without authorization or subverting the old. It is also altered when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in due time or from acting freely, since it is not names but the use and exercise of powers that constitute governments.
Chapter 37
Section 384 cards
According to Locke, what happens when a prince alters electors or election methods without consent?
Locke argues the legislative is thereby altered, because those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people. If persons other than those the society authorized choose, or the choice occurs in a way the society did not prescribe, the chosen cannot count as the people's legislative. This is the third means he lists by which a government may be dissolved.
Chapter 38
Why does delivering the people into subjection to a foreign power dissolve government?
Locke argues the end of entering society is to be preserved as one entire, free, independent society governed by its own laws. When the prince or legislative gives the people up into another's power, that end is lost, so the legislative is changed and the government dissolved.
Chapter 38
What happens when the supreme executive neglects his charge so laws cannot be executed?
Locke argues this demonstrably reduces all to anarchy and dissolves the government. Laws exist to be executed as bonds of society; when execution totally ceases, the people become a confused multitude without order. Where laws cannot be executed it is as if there were no laws, and government without laws is inconceivable and inconsistent with human society.
Chapter 38
When does the legislative act contrary to its trust, and what follows?
Locke argues the legislative breaches trust when it invades subjects' property or makes itself or others arbitrary masters of lives, liberties, or fortunes. Since men enter society to preserve property, such legislators put themselves in a state of war with the people, who are absolved from obedience and may resume their original liberty and erect a new legislative.
Chapter 38
Section 394 cards
How does Locke respond to the claim that founding government on the people's opinion invites ruin?
Locke answers "quite the contrary": people are not easily moved out of their old forms and are hardly prevailed with to amend acknowledged faults. He cites England's revolutions, which kept the nation with, or returned it to, the old legislative of king, lords and commons, and never placed the crown in another line.
Chapter 39
According to Locke, do revolutions occur over every small governmental mistake?
No. Locke says great mistakes, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. Only a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way and making the design visible, moves them to rouse themselves and seek to place rule in hands securing the ends of government.
Chapter 39
Whom does Locke identify as truly and properly rebels?
Locke argues that rebellion is opposition to authority founded in the constitution and laws, not to persons. Those who by force break through and justify violating the laws are truly rebels, since they bring back the state of war. He adds that those in power are likeliest to do this, given their pretense of authority, force, and flatterers.
Chapter 39
How does Locke answer the objection that his doctrine occasions civil wars?
Locke argues one might as well say honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates because it may cause disorder or bloodshed. Any mischief should be charged to the invader, not the defender of his own right. He compares passive submission to the lamb yielding to the wolf and to Ulysses' companions quietly waiting to be devoured by Polyphemus.
Chapter 39
Section 403 cards
According to Locke, what is the end of government and the core dilemma of resistance?
Locke argues the end of government is the good of mankind. He asks whether it is better for the people to be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or for rulers to sometimes be liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in power and employ it to destroy rather than preserve the properties of their people.
Chapter 40
When does Locke say a people is likely to stir against its rulers?
Locke argues people are more disposed to suffer than to right themselves by resistance. They are not moved by particular injustice or the oppression of an unfortunate man here and there. Only when the mischief has grown general and rulers' ill designs become visible to the greater part, grounded on manifest evidence, do they act.
Chapter 40
What limits does Locke place on the people's right to resist a tyrannical king?
Locke argues self-defence is part of the law of nature and cannot be denied the community even against the king. But the people may only defend themselves, not attack the prince; they may repair damages but not exceed due reverence, and may repulse a present attempt but not revenge past violences. Revenge by an inferior on a superior is against nature.
Chapter 40
Section 413 cards
What two limitations does Barclay attach to resistance, and how does Locke answer them?
Barclay says resistance must be with reverence and without retribution, since an inferior cannot punish a superior. The author argues both are useless: resisting force without striking back only invites worse treatment, and resisting force with force creates a state of war that levels the parties, cancelling superiority and giving the victorious resister a right to punish the aggressor.
Chapter 41
According to Barclay, what two cases cause a king to un-king himself?
Barclay holds the people may never resist while he remains king, but names two cases where a king ipso facto ceases to be king: if he designs to ruin the kingdom and commonwealth, as Nero and Caligula reportedly did, or if he subjects his free kingdom to the dominion of another nation, losing his supreme dignity and betraying his people's liberty.
Chapter 41
Why does subjecting his kingdom to a foreign power cost the king his authority?
Even if the king does not intend to harm the people, he loses the principal part of regal dignity, being supreme in his kingdom next and immediately under God. He also betrays or forces his people, whose liberty he ought to preserve, into a foreign nation's power. By this alienation he loses his own power without transferring any right, leaving the people free.
Chapter 41
Section 424 cards
According to Locke, who is the proper judge when a prince or legislature acts contrary to trust?
Locke replies that the people shall be judge, since the one who deputes a trustee retains power to discard him when he fails in his trust. He argues this is reasonable even in private cases, and more so where the welfare of millions is concerned and the evil, if unprevented, is greater and redress difficult, dear, and dangerous.
Chapter 42
What does Locke say about the question 'Who shall be judge?' when no earthly judicature exists?
Locke says the question cannot mean there is no judge at all: where there is no judicature on earth to decide controversies, God in heaven is judge. God alone is judge of the right, but every man is judge for himself whether another has put himself into a state of war with him and whether he should appeal to the Supreme Judge, as Jephtha did.
Chapter 42
What does Locke report Barclay conceding about resisting a king, and when may people resist?
Locke says Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted and ceases to be a king. Wherever the king has no authority, he is no king and may be resisted. Barclay also allows resistance when tyranny is only in design, since the people may prevent the mischief before it is done.
Chapter 42
When does political power revert to the people, according to Locke's conclusion?
Locke concludes that power given to society can never revert to individuals while society lasts, and legislative power cannot revert to the people while that government lasts. But if the legislative's duration was limited, or those in authority forfeit it by miscarriages, then upon forfeiture or expiry it reverts to society, and the people may act as supreme, keep the legislative themselves, or erect a new form.
Chapter 42
Source and licence
Text used: Project Gutenberg eBook #7370 (Public domain in the United States). Generated from the full text; cards paraphrase the source.
Version: Public domain edition. Retrieved 2026-10-24. Cards reviewed 2026-10-24.
These cards paraphrase the text for study. They are not a substitute for reading the book, and they do not reproduce long passages.
Turn your own notes into cards
Upload a PDF, Word, or text file and get question-and-answer cards for closed-notes practice. Five cards are free, no signup.