Concerning Civil Government (Second Essay) John Locke

     In a time such as ours, it is wise to be politically well read. As a matter of fact, it might be best to turn off the "debates" and Presidential State of the Re-election Speech and read a Classical document on government. One great starting place, to be more informed is John Lock's Concerning Civil Government: The Second Essay.      
     Mortimer Adler does a great job of introducing this important political work and its historical context within The Great Ideas Program. He points out that Locke was not the first to articulate the notion of "social contract."  Adler, adds also there are great differences between the views of Hobbes and Locke on the origin of the state.  Adler compares Hobbes, Locke and Aristotle showing, that for some, the state of nature was rather dark.  However, Locke's view of the state of nature was not as bleak. (120)   "Hobbes thinks of the state of nature as one of war and brutishness, Locke thinks of it as a state of liberty." (127)  However, according to John Locke, there are distinct disadvantages of the state of nature (129).  It is clear that property is very important in Locke's political theory.  By property,  Locke means private property.  One can only imagine Locke's reaction to one's labor being taxed.  
     Adler does another service for the reader by connecting Aristotle's notion of humans being political animals to what John Locke is examining. For Locke, we are political animals because "we possess speech and reason." (131) The other advantage to reading Adler's brief introduction to this work is that he includes interpretive questions.  These are the kinds of questions that would cause current American political figures to lose sleep.  With teleprompters off, it would get very ugly, very fast.
     Some questions that Adler asks,
1) Aristotle said that the political state is natural,  Locke says that the natural condition of man is that in which he existed prior to the origin of the state. What is the reason for this difference?
2) Does a social contract theory require us to believe that there actually was a time when men believed in the state of nature?
3) Are sovereign nations in a state of nature?
4) Since, according to social contract theories,  a state is formed by the consent of all those who were in a state of nature, must a government of a civil society also be based on consent, i.e., must it be constitutional?
5) What, if anything, is the significance of substituting "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for "life, liberty and estates" in the enumeration of natural rights?
6) Were the writers of the Declaration of Independence any less believers in the right of estates (i.e., private property) than Locke?
7) Why should property be represented at all?
   You can see why I believe that turning off the political noise, reading this work, and then thinking through these questions would be of far greater benefit.  It may also shock us into seeing that the issues and ideas of Locke and the Founding Fathers have been set aside for the agenda of a massive federal government that is bloated to the point of self-destruction, and all the while property is still a major issue.