John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” (1690) stands as one of the most influential works in the history of political philosophy, providing the theoretical foundation for modern constitutional democracy, the protection of individual rights, and the legitimate right of revolution. Writing in the aftermath of England’s Glorious Revolution, Locke crafted a social contract theory fundamentally different from that of his predecessor Thomas Hobbes. While Hobbes used the social contract to justify absolute sovereignty, Locke employed it to argue for limited government, popular sovereignty, and the inalienable rights of individuals. For Locke, the social contract is not a once-and-for-all submission to an absolute ruler but a two-stage process through which free and equal individuals first agree to form a political community and then establish a government entrusted with the specific purpose of protecting their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. This editorial examines the precise structure of Locke’s social contract, its grounding in natural law and natural rights, its mechanisms of consent, and its revolutionary implications for the relationship between citizens and the state.
John Locke (1632–1704) wrote his “Two Treatises of Government” during one of the most transformative periods in English political history. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had deposed King James II and installed William of Orange and Mary on the throne, establishing parliamentary supremacy and limiting monarchical power through the Bill of Rights. Locke’s work, published in 1690, served as both a defense of this revolution and a systematic philosophical justification for government based on consent rather than divine right.
Locke’s social contract theory must be understood against the backdrop of two opposing positions. On one side stood the doctrine of divine right monarchy, most forcefully articulated by Robert Filmer in his “Patriarcha”, which held that political authority descended from Adam through absolute monarchs who ruled by God’s will. Locke devoted the entire First Treatise to refuting Filmer’s arguments. On the other side stood Hobbes’s “Leviathan”, which, while grounding political authority in consent, used that premise to justify absolute sovereignty. Locke charted a middle course: government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, but that consent is conditional and revocable.
Philosophically, Locke was an empiricist who rejected the existence of innate ideas, arguing instead that the human mind begins as a “tabula rasa,” a blank slate, and acquires knowledge through experience. This epistemological position shaped his political theory: if there are no innate ideas of political authority, then all legitimate political power must be grounded in the actual or implied consent of those who are governed.
Locke’s state of nature differs dramatically from Hobbes’s war of all against all. For Locke, the state of nature is “a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.” It is governed by the law of nature, discoverable by reason, which teaches “that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”. However, the state of nature has three significant inconveniences: there is no established, settled, known law; there is no known and impartial judge to apply that law; and there is no executive power to enforce just judgments. These inconveniences, rather than the fear of violent death, motivate individuals to enter civil society.
Locke’s Social Contract
The Two-Stage Contract
Locke’s social contract is not a single agreement but a two-stage process. The first stage is the contract that creates civil society or the political community. The second stage is the trust by which that community establishes a particular form of government.
The first contract occurs among individuals in the state of nature. Each person agrees with every other to “join and unite into a community, to live comfortably, safely, and peaceably together, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it”. Through this agreement, the multitude becomes “one people, one body politic, under one supreme government”.
Crucially, what individuals surrender in this first contract is not their natural rights but rather the personal power to enforce those rights. In the state of nature, every person has the executive power to punish violations of the law of nature. This power is surrendered to the community as a whole. Individuals retain their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property; indeed, the entire purpose of forming society is to better protect these rights.
The second stage is the establishment of government. Once the community is formed, it must decide on the form its government will take, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, or some mixed form. The community, acting through majority rule, entrusts legislative and executive powers to specified individuals or assemblies for the purpose of protecting the rights of all members. This is not a contract between subjects and ruler but a trust established by the community for its own benefit.
The Nature of Consent
Consent is the cornerstone of Locke’s political theory. Because all human beings are naturally free and equal, no one can be subjected to the political power of another without their own consent. Locke distinguishes between two forms of consent: express consent and tacit consent. Express consent is given explicitly, through an oath or declaration, and makes a person a full member of the commonwealth with all the obligations and rights of citizenship. Tacit consent, by contrast, is given through actions that imply acceptance of the government’s authority.
Locke writes that “every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it”. Simply traveling on a highway, lodging in a house, or inheriting property within a territory counts as tacit consent. However, tacit consent binds a person only so long as they continue to enjoy the protection of the government; unlike express consent, it does not create a permanent obligation.
This distinction has generated significant scholarly debate. Critics, both in Locke’s time and ours, have questioned whether tacit consent can truly ground political obligation. If mere presence within a territory counts as consent, then those who have no realistic alternative, who cannot easily leave their homeland, are effectively bound without genuine choice. Locke’s defenders respond that his theory requires actual consent, at least at the founding of a political community, and that subsequent generations inherit both the benefits and obligations of that founding agreement.
Majority Rule
Once individuals have consented to form a political community, Locke argues that they must be bound by the decision of the majority. Since unanimous consent to every law is impractical, the original agreement to form society necessarily includes an agreement to be bound by majority will. Locke writes: “When any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority”. A body can move only one way at a time, and that direction must be the direction of the greater force, which is the consent of the majority.
This principle of majority rule applies to the community’s decisions about the form of government and to the subsequent operation of the legislature. However, the majority rule is not absolute. It is constrained by the fundamental law of nature and by the purpose for which the community was formed, the protection of individual rights. A majority cannot legitimately vote to enslave a minority or to deprive them of their property without consent.
The Purpose of Government: Protecting Property
Locke’s most famous and controversial claim is that “the great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. “To understand this claim, one must understand Locke’s expansive definition of property. For Locke, “property” includes not only external possessions but also “life, liberty, and estate”. The right to property in one’s own person is the foundation of all other rights. Because each person owns their own body and the labor of that body, they acquire property in the things with which they mix their labor.
Locke’s theory of property begins with the premise that God gave the earth to humanity in common. But how can private property ever be justified if the earth is originally common? Locke’s answer is that each person has property in their own person, and “the labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his”. When an individual mixes their labor with something from the common stock, by picking apples, tilling soil, or building a house, they remove it from the common state and establish a private right to it.
This appropriation is subject to two important limitations. First, there must be “enough, and as good, left in common for others” . Second, one may not take more than one can use before it spoils. These limitations ensure that private appropriation does not harm others. The introduction of money changes this dynamic. By agreeing to place value on durable goods like gold and silver, people can legitimately accumulate more than they can use without spoilage. This creates economic inequality, which in turn creates the need for the government to regulate property disputes and protect holdings.
The government's role with respect to property is not to redistribute wealth arbitrarily but to provide the stable framework within which individuals can peacefully enjoy the fruits of their labor. This includes establishing known laws, impartial judges, and effective enforcement mechanisms, the very things missing in the state of nature.
The Structure of Government
Locke advocates for a constitutional government with a clear separation of powers. He identifies three distinct powers within a commonwealth: legislative, executive, and federative. The legislative power is supreme, but only in a qualified sense. It is supreme because it makes the laws that govern society, and all other branches are subordinate to it. However, the legislative power is not absolute. Locke specifies several limitations: it must govern by established, promulgated laws rather than arbitrary decrees; those laws must be designed for the good of the people; it cannot raise taxes without the consent of the people or their representatives; and it cannot transfer its law-making authority to any other body.
The legislative power need not be in constant session, but the executive power must be perpetual. It is responsible for enforcing the laws and must always be in operation. Locke also recognizes a federative power, which handles relations with foreign states, war, peace, treaties, and alliances. While analytically distinct, the federative power is almost always united with the executive. Locke also acknowledges the necessity of prerogative, the power of the executive to act for the public good in situations not covered by law or where following the law would be detrimental. This power is dangerous but necessary, and its abuse is one of the most common causes of revolution.
The Right to Revolution
Perhaps Locke’s most radical conclusion is his defense of the right to revolution. Because government is a trust established by the people for their benefit, the people retain the ultimate authority to judge whether that trust has been violated. Locke argues that when a government acts contrary to its trust, by attempting to destroy or take away the property of the people, by reducing them to slavery under arbitrary power, or by repeatedly violating their rights, the government has declared itself in a state of war with the people. In such circumstances, the people have the right to “appeal to heaven” and resist.
This right is not a right to constant rebellion at the slightest provocation. Locke emphasizes that people are slow to abandon their accustomed forms of government and will tolerate considerable mismanagement before resorting to revolution. But when “a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people,” they not only may but must resist. The right to revolution is not exercised against the government but against those who have placed themselves in a state of war with the people by violating the fundamental terms of the trust. In such cases, the power reverts to the community, which may then establish a new government as it sees fit.
This defense of revolution provided the theoretical justification for the Glorious Revolution in England and later profoundly influenced the American revolutionaries. Jefferson’s assertion in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” and that the people have the right to “alter or to abolish” destructive governments is directly Lockean .
Locke’s social contract theory has faced substantial criticism on several fronts. The most persistent critique concerns the adequacy of tacit consent as a foundation for political obligation. If merely walking on a highway or inheriting property counts as consent, then consent becomes so attenuated as to lose its moral force. Those born into a society have no real choice but to accept its laws, raising questions about whether such “consent” can truly legitimate political authority. Locke’s defenders respond that the original founding of a society requires actual unanimous consent, and subsequent generations are bound by the benefits they receive, which they are free to renounce by emigration.
A second line of critique concerns Locke’s theory of property. Critics have argued that Locke’s labor theory of property was designed to justify the enclosure of common lands in England and colonial expropriation in the Americas. Locke himself was involved in drafting the constitution for the Carolinas, which included provisions for slavery and serfdom, raising questions about whose rights he sought to protect. The proviso that there must be “enough and as good” left for others is unrealistic in a world of scarce resources.
Feminist theorists, following Carole Pateman, have pointed out that Locke’s social contract implicitly excludes women from full participation. While Locke argued against absolute monarchy, he retained a conception of paternal power within the family that subordinate’s women’s political standing. The “individual” of Lockean theory is implicitly male and propertied.
Finally, some critics question whether Locke’s theory can adequately ground the welfare state. If the government exists primarily to protect property, does it have any obligation to provide for those who have no property? Locke does recognize a duty of charity, “as justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty as will keep him from extreme want, ” but this duty is not easily squared with the primacy he places on property rights.
Locke’s social contract theory remains foundational for contemporary political philosophy and practice. The United States Declaration of Independence is essentially a Lockean document, grounded in natural rights, consent, and the right to revolution . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes Locke’s emphasis on rights inherent in the human person that governments must respect.
In constitutional theory, Locke’s separation of powers and his insistence that even legislative power is limited by the fundamental law of nature anticipate modern constitutionalism and judicial review. His argument that taxation requires the consent of the governed, either directly or through representatives, remains a cornerstone of democratic legitimacy.
Contemporary debates about property rights, economic justice, and the limits of government continue to engage Lockean themes. Libertarians draw on Locke to argue for strong protection of property rights and minimal government. Egalitarians point to Locke’s proviso about leaving “enough and as good” for others as a basis for redistributive justice. The ongoing relevance of these debates testifies to the enduring power of Locke’s framework.
John Locke’s social contract theory, articulated in his “Second Treatise of Government”, fundamentally transformed Western political thought by grounding legitimate political authority in the consent of free and equal individuals. Unlike Hobbes, who used the social contract to justify absolute sovereignty, Locke crafted a theory of limited government whose purpose is the protection of natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The contract is twofold: individuals first agree to form a political community, surrendering only their personal power to enforce the law of nature; that community then establishes a government as a trust, with powers carefully separated and constrained. When the government violates this trust, the people retain the ultimate authority to resist and replace it. Locke’s theory provides the philosophical foundation for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the right of revolution. Its influence extends from the Glorious Revolution to the American Declaration of Independence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The questions Locke posed about consent, obligation, property, and the limits of political authority remain central to contemporary political philosophy. Three centuries after the publication of the “Second Treatise”, we continue to wrestle with the Lockean inheritance: governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when they become destructive of the ends for which they were established, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish them.
