John Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government': Outline of the Modern Democratic State

Note: John Locke is an important name in the history of political theory and thought. In particular, his book 'Two Treatises of Government,' published in 1689, is an outstanding addition to modern political philosophy and political science. This book can be referred to as the 'Bible' of the modern liberal democratic state. In this work, Locke elaborates in detail on natural rights, the sovereignty of the state, social contracts, the limitations of governance, and the rights of the people to resist and participate. He has demonstrated, based on reason and evidence, that the power of the ruler cannot depend on divinity or tradition; rather, it is dependent on the consent of the governed and the common good.

Locke's thoughts and theories are not only influential in the previous centuries but also significantly impact discussions on modern democratic states, constitutions, and international human rights today. His book provides a groundbreaking perspective for contemplating the rights of the people, the limits of governance, the law, and the responsibilities of government. Here, an initial discussion of Locke's historical work has been attempted for the readers of Akhara. Various parts of Jeremy Cleidos and Ian Jackson's 'An Analysis of John Locke's Two Treatises of Government' have been utilized for translation and analysis. The Akhara team has prepared the complete text by translating and editing these sections with the help of AI.

Who was John Locke?

John Locke, the author of the book 'Two Treatises of Government', was born on August 26, 1632, in Somerset County, England. His father was a lawyer and a captain in the parliamentary army during the English Civil War. This civil war took place between the supporters of the monarchy (led by King Charles I) and the parliamentary supporters. Due to his good standing in the parliamentary camp, Locke's father was able to provide his son with the opportunity to study at the prestigious Westminster School in London.

From there, Locke went to Oxford University, where he earned his bachelor's degree in 1656. He obtained his master's degree in 1658 and earned a degree in medicine in 1674. After finishing his university life, Locke worked as a physician for the influential politician of the time, the Earl of Shaftesbury. He also went to France to work as a physician and later gained some experience in international trade while working for the English government.

The English Civil War lasted from 1642 to 1651, and as a result, many began to question what type of government would be most suitable for the country. Specifically, two individuals, political theorist Robert Filmer and philosopher Thomas Hobbes, arrived at nearly the same conclusion. They believed that only a single sovereign king could maintain order among everyone in society, and (according to Filmer) the right of that king to rule was divine (although Hobbes disagrees with this latter view. For more details on Hobbes's thoughts, see the 'Basic Concepts' series of 'Akhrar' titled: 'Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan'). Locke did not agree with this view. In opposition to it, he wrote the book 'Two Treatises of Government' around 1679 to 1689. The book was first published anonymously, primarily because his ideas were highly controversial in the context of that time.

In 1683, accusations arose against Locke himself for being involved in the 'Rye House Plot.' This was a plan to assassinate the then King Charles II. Although Charles was a Protestant, he was somewhat sympathetic to Roman Catholics. In fact, his brother James was a Catholic himself. The Rye House conspirators were Protestants who were staunchly anti-Catholic and feared that after Charles's death—since he had no heir—his brother James would ascend to the throne, thereby bringing the country back under a Roman Catholic ruler. They believed that by killing Charles, they could prevent the return of Catholics to the throne. Locke's role was to arrange accommodations for one of the main members involved in the conspiracy. However, the plot failed. Afterward, when Charles adopted a harsh repression policy against hardline Protestants, Locke was forced to flee to the Netherlands, where he remained. He stayed there until the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, when William III took power in England.

Author's Background

When John Locke wrote 'Two Treatises', the political context was very exciting. Although it is not clear exactly when the book was written—sometime between 1679 and 1689—the historical background can be easily identified.

Initially, England was without a king for almost 19 years after Charles's death; however, the monarchy was restored in 1660. The new king, Charles II, was not welcomed everywhere. Towards the end of his reign, political tensions surrounding his succession reached a peak. Charles II had no legitimate heirs, which created an opportunity for his brother James II to become king after his death—something that was unacceptable to many. This was because James was authoritarian; he refused to cooperate with Parliament, and most importantly, he was an open Roman Catholic.

When Charles II died in 1685, James II became king, but his reign lasted less than three years. He fled the country in 1688, and in his place, Protestant William of Orange and his wife Mary were declared king and queen, an event known in history as the 'Glorious Revolution.'

This is why the year 1689 is significant as the publication date of 'Two Treatises.' The question of how the country should be governed was a pressing issue at the time, as the reign of James II had failed. Locke, who had been exiled from the country in 1683 on false charges of conspiring to assassinate Charles II in the Rye House Plot, remained in exile in the Netherlands until the Glorious Revolution of 1688. He later returned to the country with the future Queen Mary. Although it is not clear when Locke wrote 'Two Treatises,' the publication of the book in 1689 indicates that the political situation in England was still far from stable.

What did 'Two Treatises of Government' say?

Although most countries in the world were governed under some form of monarchy at that time, the question of why this is justified has not been given much thought. However, the question of where the true power of the state lies becomes particularly important in the United Kingdom, as there had been bloody conflicts over the limits of the king's power.

In 1649, King Charles I was executed, and the civil war proved to be extremely costly and destructive for England as a whole. Since the event was still fresh in people's memories, it created an important backdrop for Locke's political thought. When Locke wrote 'Two Treatises of Government,' Charles II, the son of Charles I, was on the throne, and the old question of how much power a king should have came to the forefront once again.

Many believed that the civil war proved that a strong king is essential to maintain order. For example, thinkers like Filmer and Hobbes firmly believed that without a king, the country would fall apart. At the beginning of the book 'Two Treatises of Government', Locke enters into a debate with Filmer about the source of the king's power. According to Locke, the right of the king to rule does not come from God; rather, it comes from those whom he governs—the people themselves.

Locke did not write solely about what is best for the people of England. He universalizes his argument—meaning he presents his statements as applicable to the rights of all people everywhere in the world. He uses the language of the Bible, the language of science, and even the language of Hobbes—although he did not agree with all of Hobbes's views. In 'Two Treatises,' Locke does not discuss real history extensively; rather, he resorts to an imagined and hypothetical history to explain his perspective on society.

According to Locke, human life begins, in his words, in the 'state of nature.' His argument suggests that the emergence of society was primarily to decide who would own what property. The concept of property is extremely important in Locke's thought because he believed that in the state of nature, everything was open to everyone and no one owned anything. But if that is true, then how did the concept of property come into being—this is the question Locke raises.

In response, he said: Once upon a time, people could enjoy as much as they wanted while leaving enough resources to meet the needs of others. When the population was small, this was not a problem. But as the availability of land and resources began to decrease, the idea of leaving enough for everyone became unrealistic. According to Locke, at that point, some people began to work hard to ensure the maximum use of what they had. He gives the example of a farmer—who mixes his labor with the soil to produce so much that spontaneous production without cultivation is impossible. This is how the initial seed of the concept of ownership is sown.

But there was a major problem with property—anyone could steal it. Therefore, it became essential to enact laws to protect property from thieves. To enforce the law effectively, there also needs to be a system in place, which makes it necessary to have a type of government that ensures everyone adheres to the new rules. Throughout much of human history, this meant the presence of a king who could maintain order in society.

Locke's fundamental contribution is that he interprets this system as a kind of contract. Although people have not completely lost their rights, they have given up some rights in exchange for protection from the king. The king will ensure that people treat each other with respect—but in Locke's view, this does not mean that the king is above the law. Rather, this contract is mutually binding. If the king does not adhere to the law, then someone else should rule in his place.

Context of the Book

The origin of liberal political philosophy—whose roots we find in John Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government'—revolves around a specific concept: individual rights.

Since it is generally agreed that people cannot be given complete freedom to act as they wish, it is naturally necessary for the government to have some power—so that anarchy does not arise; that is, to prevent the creation of a society where there is no government or law. Although the concepts of rights and freedom seem very natural today, this was not the case when 'Two Treatises' was published in 1689. In fact, many people believed that the king was above the law. Although this idea was more prevalent in France than in England—because the English had long enjoyed some traditional civil liberties (they were only subject to those laws that were consensually enacted for the overall welfare of society).

The English Civil War, which took place from 1642 to 1651, was primarily initiated around the question of whether King Charles I would be held accountable to Parliament for imposing taxes. The idea of holding kings accountable was a much more progressive concept compared to the norms of that time. In reality, Locke's ideas became more effective later—after the American Revolutionary War, which occurred between 1775 and 1783. By then, philosophers like David Hume had further developed Locke's concepts.

As a result of Locke's work, issues such as property, tyranny, and political rebellion began to be considered not merely as abstract concepts for the first time, but as questions of real life. At that time, these were questions that were connected to actual events; and these questions had a direct impact on the lives of many people, particularly in England. At the same time, Locke emphasized some general principles that help explain how different types of government systems and political beliefs are related to one another. As a result, his ideas can be easily applied in contexts that may be very different from his personal experiences.

General Scope of Discussion

John Locke wrote 'Two Treatises of Government' at a time that was filled with political revolution and debate. Therefore, it is natural that, as a philosopher, he was not the only one contemplating these questions. Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes—these two important thinkers also worked on similar questions, but they arrived at completely different conclusions.

Filmer's important work 'Patriarcha' was published in 1680 after his death; and like Locke's writings, it is a product of the political realities of the time. Against the backdrop of the conflict between Parliament and Charles I, 'Patriarcha' presents a Bible-based argument in favor of the rule of kings. Filmer portrays the family as an ideal model, where the father makes decisions and, upon his death, transfers that power to his eldest son. Although Filmer is not the only philosopher who supported the divine right of kings—that is, the right to rule solely because they are chosen by God—Locke specifically targets him. In fact, the first essay of 'Two Treatises' is written in direct opposition to Filmer's ideas.

Hobbes was a thinker of a completely different nature compared to Filmer. His 1651 work 'Leviathan' was written during the chaotic times of the English Civil War. In this work, Hobbes presents the concept of the 'social contract.' According to this idea, a society forms a government when the people agree to be governed by a ruler or ruling group in exchange for the protection of their lives and certain fundamental rights. Implicit in this is the suggestion that a government that fails to fulfill its responsibilities also loses its legitimacy.

Whatever may be said about the importance of this concept, it will be an understatement. The idea of the social contract is seen as the foundation of modern Western political philosophy. Hobbes, like Filmer, argues in favor of the rights of kings, but not from a theological perspective, rather from a practical one. From his direct experience of the chaos of civil war, Hobbes believed that it is the kings who maintain order in society; and that the rebellion of the people drives the country towards disaster.

In the title of Locke's Second Treatise, it is stated that its purpose is to understand the 'true source, extent, and purpose of democratic government.' The origin of the state, the necessity of limiting the power of the sovereign, the need to equate authority with law, and the importance of protecting political and property rights—all of these reflect the core ideas of Locke.

This article did not present any direct counterarguments against Hobbes. This is because Hobbes also believed that power is legitimate only when it is used for the welfare of the people; on the other hand, he believed that individuals should have the freedom to act in any way that is not prohibited by law. Their difference was primarily in practical questions.

Hobbes viewed the 'state of nature' as a violent reality, where human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In Hobbes's writing, 'Leviathan' refers to the sovereign—who protects people from each other on one hand and from their own destructive instincts on the other. According to him, human society surrenders its natural rights to the sovereign in exchange for the protection provided by the ruler.

Academic Influences

It is almost impossible to evaluate John Locke's 'Two Treatises' without separating its arguments from the significant intellectual influence of his close friends and colleagues.

Locke's education, religious perspective, and family background inspired him to pursue a political theory that emerged from both nature and society. His proposals posed a serious challenge to the prevailing thought that sought to legitimize the power of the king or parliament based on religious reasoning. Locke's association with Oxford University and his friendships with figures like the Earl of Shaftesbury and statesman Lord John Somers provided him with opportunities for radical or progressive exchanges of ideas.

Lock was born in a changing time. The ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato had dominated European thought for over two thousand years. However, contemporary philosophers like René Descartes began to question this classical thought and reshape it. In this context, Lock's ideas can be seen as an evolved form of Hobbes's thought—drawn on one hand from the events of the era and on the other hand from the intellectual consciousness of the time.

The rationalist spirit of the Age of Enlightenment was bringing forth new ideas; and it was encouraging people to question long-established customs and beliefs. Locke was perhaps arguing for a contemporary system of governance in which a king with limited powers would govern the state—just as some of his friends within the government desired. However, the lasting impact of his ideas extended far beyond the boundaries of 17th-century English politics.

Main content

The main content of John Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government' is: the origin of political power, the role of power in organizing the institutions of the state, the limitations of state power, and under what circumstances power can be overthrown or changed. Additionally, several important topics are included among these main themes, such as—property rights, slavery, paternal authority, and the division of political power.

It is most convenient to understand the emergence and development of folk themes in two parts:

• First Essay: Here he presents the arguments of political thinker Robert Filmer in favor of the emperor's absolute power. Filmer explains this power as stemming from the biblical story of Adam, who plays the role of the father of all humanity. Just as Niccolò Machiavelli lists various ways for a ruler to gain power in 'The Prince', Locke analyzes various claims regarding Adam's absolute power and how these have gradually led to a logical framework that justifies the English monarchy, and he challenges it destructively.
  
• Second Essay: Locke has discussed many of these themes again, but in an evolutionary manner. He explains the gradual rise of political power from the development of primitive social systems and personal property and economic systems. This approach allows the reader to fully understand Locke's assumptions about human nature, society, and the state, and clarifies what the true purpose of the state was.
  

After defining and explaining these assumptions, Locke analyzes how political institutions should be divided into two parts: the law-making power and the law-enforcing power, how the leadership of the state can become corrupt, and what society can do to prevent the abuse of power.

Spread of ideas

Since Locke's main themes revolve around the question of power, human rights can be defined as an important feature of this text. Locke was not in favor of a perfect free society; rather, he proposed the idea of a social contract between the government and the people.

The arguments and discussion topics of the first and second essays of the book are different, although the first essay supports the discussion of the second essay.

In a deeply religious society like 17th century England, Locke's readers would have to confront the problematic aspects of the idea of the 'God-appointed monarch': if the king's power comes from God, then any limitation on that power would be contrary to God's will (this is known as absolutism).

The king inherited his power from the biblical first man Adam—Locke rejects this notion, mocking Filmer's belief. Locke argues that Adam never passed on any power to his descendants; and historically identifying his true heir is actually impossible.

The influence of religion is low—such observations may seem unnecessary in an era and society like this. However, for Locke's contemporaries, this idea creates the opportunity and freedom to declare a government legitimate or illegitimate under certain specific conditions. It provides a discussion on the limits of (political) legitimacy, particularly regarding when it is legitimate to change the leadership and institutions of the state.

After rejecting this absolutism, Locke provides a fictional account that shows how society transforms into a political state.

The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688—where Catholic King James II was removed and Protestant King William III and his wife Queen Mary II took power—provides an important, yet 'consciously omitted' background for understanding Locke's main themes. If you believe that James abused his power, then Locke's thinking justifies his ousting. It is also seen that William and Mary, by being under the law of Parliament, are consistent with Locke's model of good governance.

However, the relationship of 'Two Treatises' with the contemporary political context has not diminished the universal appeal of the book's central theme. The government protects property rights, and the source of governmental power is the people—this idea leads to an important and logical conclusion: what the people have given, the people can also take back. The right to change the ruler in case of abuse of power is still considered one of the most influential concepts of the text.

Other content

The most important secondary themes of John Locke's 'Two Treatises' are colonialism and slavery, which are related to Locke's extensive arguments.

The discussions regarding slavery have been brought forth primarily to demonstrate the dangers of divinely granted power—divine rights or the theory of absolutism. According to Locke's belief, “a man who does not have the power to control his own life cannot make himself a slave to anyone through a contract or his own consent, nor can he place himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of someone who can kill him whenever they wish.”

Here, Locke is establishing the foundation of natural rights—the idea that ultimately abolished slavery as a political institution. This has occurred in many areas of Locke's thought—he describes an ideal state; and many years later, it has become a reality.

The context of America and its indigenous people is closely intertwined with Locke's belief that political society was primarily created for the purpose of protecting property. He uses this example to demonstrate the practical basis of his theoretical ideas about the gradual development of society. However, he also aims to show through this example that there was a legitimate right to establish English colonies; because, compared to the local indigenous people, the English had a much more efficient system of property use that was more beneficial for the general welfare.

Just as Locke frequently used biblical quotes to dismantle patriarchy, his discussion on colonialism is not the same; rather, it is quite lively and easy to read. Through the investment of labor, people acquire rights to property—after establishing this point, he argues that colonial expansion was primarily a means of labor and value addition on unused or underutilized land, and thus it was a just endeavor.

Neglected aspects

Although "Two Treatises" is one of Locke's most frequently cited works and is generally considered a cornerstone of modern political thought regarding liberalism and universal human rights, it is the second treatise that has received the most attention. Traditionally, there has been less interest in the first treatise, so it is not often mentioned in other major political texts. Moreover, the little interest that existed in Locke's arguments against patriarchal monarchy and unconditional political loyalty has naturally faded over time. The complexities of establishing the divine legitimacy of rulers on any rational basis and the resulting fears of oppression of citizens by the state—Locke's arguments against these are somewhat difficult to comprehend in a modern context; because, in current world politics, the predominance of liberal democracy is more pronounced.

Nevertheless, the ideas presented in the first essay have not become irrelevant over time. Even in understanding the impact of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes in the present age, these concepts can become profoundly significant.

According to historians like Herbert Rowan, one of the partial reasons the first essay in scholarly literature has remained neglected is the failure to properly assess its dual role. This work is not merely a rejection or refutation of Robert Filmer's theory of the 'Divine Right of Kings'; rather, it is a strong expression of Locke's own belief that the power structure based on primogeniture (the practice of transferring property and titles to the eldest son or nearest male heir) is fundamentally flawed. Metaphorically speaking, Locke's first essay diagnoses the ailment of political thought, the cure or solution to which he provides in his second essay.

The detailed use of biblical quotations in the first essay, which has largely been overlooked, indicates a long period during which religious issues were not given much importance in the evaluation of political values. However, contemporary Western political theorists have begun to consider the role of religious beliefs in shaping political ideas in more detail. In the same vein, scholars like political scientist Barbara Arneil have argued that Locke's specific statements regarding America and its indigenous peoples have either been ignored or misinterpreted. These sections (which are primarily found in the fifth chapter) are considered highly suitable material for reinterpreting the historical role of the text in legitimizing both colonial rule and the expansion of capitalism.

Human rights theorists like scholar David Held—who advocate for universal human rights while struggling to maintain a balance between local practices and ethics—have also chosen this path of criticism. The issue of resolving this conflict or tension has become much more urgent today than it was during Locke's time, influenced by political and economic globalization.

What is the reason? The reason is that currently, most states are subject to various international laws. These laws compel states to adhere to certain human rights internally; at the same time, when those rights are under severe threat in another state, they also demand intervention to protect them.

Evaluation of Logical Arguments

Although John Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government' primarily reflects the political and philosophical issues of late seventeenth-century England, it is considered much more important and relevant in today's political debates compared to the time of its publication. Part of the reason for this is that prominent thinkers of the eighteenth century—such as philosopher David Hume and statesman Thomas Jefferson—recognized the value of this work and widely promoted it. Hume stated that this book contains the essence of contemporary political thought; on the other hand, Jefferson referred to Locke as one of the three greatest thinkers of the modern era.

There is a possibility that Locke himself may not have fully realized the potential of his arguments. His work helped to explain the political tensions of 1688, when William of Orange ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom after the 'Glorious Revolution' and began his reign as William III. In fact, by the time the book was published in 1689, the English Parliament had already been able to limit the powers of the king. This means that the system of governance Locke described was, to some extent, already practically existing at that time. Although the initial drafts of 'Two Treatises' were written before the establishment of limited monarchy, the timing of its publication was consistent with the existence of this system of governance as a political reality. From this perspective, it can be seen that Locke aimed to establish the new political arrangement as rational.

However, the will of the people was not fully reflected in this new system. In reality, a large portion of the general public was not granted the right to participate in the governance of the state. In this system, many powers were still left solely in the hands of the king, and true democracy did not come to England for many more years. Therefore, it is essential to understand that Locke was not in favor of a democratic society; although democratic principles can be seen as the logical ultimate outcome of Locke's social contract. Later, thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau highlighted the necessity for broader public participation in the structure of government.

Some limitations

Locke's 'Two Treatises' is a work that can be reinterpreted in various political and temporal contexts. The questions that were significant during Locke's time—such as whether a king rules by divine right, and whether he is entitled to unconditional loyalty—are no longer such exciting political issues today. However, the government must be accountable, and people have the right to rebel against tyrannical regimes—Locke's belief in this has become so popular that these ideas are considered political truths in today's liberal states.

The first part of the book may be somewhat challenging for non-white and non-Christian readers. However, the rest of 'Two Treatises' has inspired a variety of resistance movements advocating for individual freedom and political accountability in different political contexts. For example, it has deeply influenced the American Civil Rights Movement and the rapid decolonization process that began in the 1940s. While early readers viewed the discussion of America in the second treatise as a way to justify colonial rule in the name of the welfare of local people, today those same local people reference Locke's concept of justice, built on respect for property rights and the welfare of the community, as an example.

This re-evaluation of Locke's liberal image is consistent with the reactions received since the publication of the book. This work has always been considered highly influential in outlining personal political rights; however, it seems contradictory in its arguments for repression and the lack of a coherent source for 'universal natural law.' Locke's work has also been criticized for its focus on individualism due to the sociocentric or collectivist consciousness of some non-Western cultures. From their perspective, Locke's philosophy places excessive emphasis on individual rights, while insufficient importance is given to political duties. In fact, this criticism also exists within the Western tradition; particularly among devout thinkers, this kind of individualism overlooks the duties a person has towards their kin or fellow citizens.

Criticism

John Locke was reluctant to acknowledge the writing of 'Two Treatises of Government.' Moreover, by the standards of that time, the book's promotion was extremely limited, so it can be said that there was hardly any critical response or discussion about it during Locke's lifetime.

Just five years after the publication of 'Two Treatises', Locke passed away in 1704. As a result, even if he had wanted to respond to various criticisms, he had very little time left. The essayist Charles Leslie directly rejected Locke's arguments in his book 'The New Association', written in 1703. Leslie's argument was that kings rule by divine right; and he spent a significant part of his career supporting King James II and the established Church of England. Additionally, some personal criticisms of this work can be found in the correspondence of Locke's friend and contemporary political thinker James Tyrrell. It was much later that learned discussions or in-depth reviews of Locke's work began, when thinkers like David Hume started to analyze 'Two Treatises' as a document of the principles of the 1688 'Glorious Revolution'.

The inconsistency or incongruity of Locke as a philosopher is one of the main criticisms of this work. Correspondence between Locke and Tyrell reveals that after the publication of the book, he (Tyrell) wrote to Locke at least six times requesting a detailed explanation of the definition of natural law. This was seen as a very important element in challenging the doctrine of Thomas Hobbes (who was often ridiculed as an 'atheist'). Tyrell was well aware that Locke's perspective on natural law included the existence of God. However, it seems that Locke was either unable or unwilling to fully explain his views on this matter.

Although Locke's reputation as a philosopher has been repeatedly criticized, his position as a political theorist becomes quite strong due to the connection he makes between political and property rights. His support for the 'Glorious Revolution,' which recognized the sovereignty of Parliament over the king, further solidifies this position after it is proven to be a sustainable and successful model of governance.

Responses

It seems that Locke was quite reluctant about the criticism of this work. Since very few people knew that Locke was the author, there were very few opportunities for anyone to respond to him directly. However, his friend James Tyrrell was well aware of this secret matter of Locke's.

Tyrrell wanted to strengthen the philosophical foundation of 'Two Treatises' to mount a powerful counterargument against Thomas Hobbes' views. Hobbes had primarily based his philosophical arguments on 'biological determinism'—that is, there is no free and independent human essence, and people behave solely in accordance with their physical needs—and on mathematical principles. Tyrrell believed that while Locke's introduction of the concept of God in explaining the common people's notions of good and evil was desirable or positive, it was not strong enough to refute Hobbes' non-religious perspective on the 'state of nature.'

We know of six letters exchanged between Locke and Tyrell, in which Locke attempted to provide a deeper explanation of his ideas. However, none of them were able to satisfy Tyrell. Locke was willing to go so far as to agree that he would criticize Hobbes's position, which states that without a state, people are not bound to follow natural law. In addition, he made it clear to Tyrell that he was "unable to participate in the discussion" on the other matters. This raises two intriguing possibilities: perhaps he did not feel capable of engaging in direct debate with Hobbes, or he was more focused on formulating practical or beneficial theories for governance rather than constructing a coherent philosophical theory.

Dissent and Consensus

Locke's disinterest in criticism and his failure to respond to it means that there has been no substantial change in his position. He was unable to meet the expectations of more robust and rigorous philosophy from sympathetic or empathetic readers like Tyrell, nor could he respond to critics who held opposing views. It is possible that Locke believed his other writings were sufficient to speak for him. Alternatively, he may have been so apprehensive about acknowledging the subject of 'Two Treatises' that he considered getting involved in a major controversy to be dangerous.

Whatever the subject may be, just as Tyrell believed that some of Locke's ideas needed further development, later thinkers also sought to elevate Locke's philosophy to a new height. However, the connection from Locke to the modern liberal state remains intact to this day. The concept of a 'social contract' that he proposed between the government and the people is eternal. Only the specifics of that contract needed to be adjusted to fit particular circumstances. For example, during the colonial crisis when the American colonies opposed British rule, Locke's idea of the people's right to rebel against tyranny or bad governance confronted that new political reality.

Lock should be seen as the intellectual foundation or supplier of resources for liberalism. The logical conclusions drawn from his ideas and the responsibility for their implementation were entrusted to different people at different times.

Contemporary Research

Among the modern supporters of Locke's philosophy, notable figures include political philosopher John Rawls, who is well-known for his theory of establishing a more just social and political system; and American political theorist Robert Nozick, who has presented a libertarian or individualist perspective on society based on Locke's values. Although their ideas about what the role of the state in society should be are not the same, both rely on Locke's concepts of personal freedom, the common good, and tyranny; even though they arrive at completely different conclusions regarding the application of these ideas in the real world.

More recently, among those who claim to be followers of Locke is constitutional theorist Donald Lutz. He is an expert on how government operates at the institutional level and has advised various states on drafting new constitutions.

Most American conservatives also feel a deep sense of unity with Locke and his call for personal freedom and limited government. Even libertarians are included in this, who advocate for an extreme version of personal freedom where the government's role is limited to matters such as defense and the enforcement of basic laws.

All these thinkers have used those parts of 'Two Treatises' that most strongly support their own positions. Due to the thoughtful use of logical philosophical reasoning instead of historical reasoning, and the breadth of the book's content, its application in solving new problems has become quite flexible and manageable.

Summary

John Locke's most comprehensive analysis of the sources, purposes, and boundaries of political and state power is 'Two Treatises'. It is one of the few works considered foundational to liberalism, contemporary world politics, and constitutional governance. It is referenced in various rulings and major texts of the United States Supreme Court; even revolutionary documents and declarations like the Declaration of Independence of America have adopted its ideas or essence.

Although much of Locke's thought is derived from others or arises in response to others, he has woven together economic, political, theological, and even medical values to establish a fundamental theory about the state.

The most important concept among these values is that the source of political power is the people; and even more importantly, when rulers abuse power or disregard the public interest, that power returns to the people. Due to the philosophical and theoretical tone or style of his discussion, these ideas have been easily applied in other political and historical contexts beyond his own time. Once political power is established, it remains legitimate only as long as it is divided between the executive and legislative branches and is accountable to the people—Locke's strong assertion was literally revolutionary. This doctrine had a significant impact on the American and French revolutionaries of the eighteenth century and on those who created new constitutional frameworks after successful revolutions.

The likelihood of Locke's 'Two Treatises' continuing to have an impact in the future is strong. This work rejects patriarchy, identifies the people as the source of political power, plays an active role in protecting political and property rights, and shows the way to establish a new political system in the event of abuse of power. Its main point is that citizens should be granted full social and political equality. As new social and political issues, like the environment, emerge, Locke's principles of political power will continue to provide guidance on how to build a just, effective, and free political system.