text:
A Million Little Fibers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"A Million Little Fibers"
South Park episode
Episode no.
Season 10
Episode 5
Directed by
Trey Parker
Written by
Trey Parker
Original air date
April 19, 2006
Episode chronology
← Previous
"Cartoon Wars Part II" Next →
"ManBearPig"
South Park (season 10)
List of South Park episodes
"A Million Little Fibers" is the fifth episode in the tenth season of the American animated television series South Park. The 144th episode of the series overall, it was first broadcast on Comedy Central in the United States on April 19, 2006. The episode focuses on Towelie and parodies the controversy over the book A Million Little Pieces, an infamous novelistic memoir by James Frey that was lauded by Oprah Winfrey on her talk show until it was revealed to be largely fabricated.[1]
The episode was written and directed by series co-creator Trey Parker. It was intended as season ten's "bank episode", meaning it was partially produced in advance to allow for time off during the actual production run. The episode had to be virtually scrapped, however, as it needed more time than was allowed to be in a finished state. The original plot of the episode parodied the television series Intervention. The episode received a mixed to negative critical reception, with many considering this one of the worst episodes of the series, including Parker and Stone themselves[2].
Contents
1 Plot
2 Production
3 Reception
4 Home release
5 References
6 External links
Plot[edit]
Having lost a job because he was high, Towelie decides to write his memoirs, but a publisher turns him down as uninteresting and irrelevant to the public because Towelie is a towel. He then submits the manuscript again, under the guise of a human author called Steven McTowelie, and he is accepted. Having been invited to appear on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Oprah Winfrey loves and promotes his book. Meanwhile, Oprah's vagina, Minge, is depressed that the overworked Oprah never pays attention to him any more. Gary, her anus, conspires with Minge to get Oprah fired. As Minge realizes that Towelie is not a person, they call Geraldo Rivera and give him the information. Subsequently, Towelie is interviewed on Larry King Live, during which Rivera reveals that the author of the book is a towel.
Mobs congregate to protest wildly; Oprah invites Towelie back on the show, saying that he can explain that he wanted to make the book more relevant and easily understandable. However, she erupts in anger and calls on the audience to lynch Towelie. As she brought the audience onto her side, Minge and Gary's plan is foiled. Just as Oprah and the crowd prepare to lynch Towelie, Minge tears through Oprah's pants with a revolver. Taking hostages, he guns down a police officer and begins making demands. Towelie, using his inherent flatness, manages to free the hostages, as police open fire on Oprah, leading to the deaths of Minge and Gary. Oprah survives and Towelie is hailed as a hero.
Production[edit]
According to series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, this episode was originally this season's "bank episode", meaning that it is partially animated before the start of the actual production run, which allows the staff to have one or two days off during the run. It was intended to be a spoof of the television series Intervention, with the people of South Park trying to get Towelie into rehab. About halfway into production, they decided the state of the episode, which consisted of about ten minutes of actual episode, was not good enough and needed more work than they could achieve, so they started from scratch. The finished show was completed in far less time than usual, thanks mostly to them having already taken a two-day break. The intervention storyline was dropped and later used in the season fourteen episode, "Crippled Summer". The story involving Oprah had always been in the episode.[3]
Parker and Stone also discussed the "hat on top of a hat" scenario to describe the "weirdness" of the episode's two stories, saying that when one wears two hats, one on top of the other, they "just end up looking like an idiot" (weirdness on top of weirdness replacing the hats). In hindsight, Parker and Stone felt that the two storylines used in this episode should have been split up into two separate episodes. The title of the episode and some elements of the plot are both a reference to the James Frey book A Million Little Pieces.[3]
Reception[edit]
In his review, Eric Goldman of IGN gave the episode a score of 3 out of 10, mostly criticizing the way the two stories worked together, saying they would have worked better in separate episodes.[4]
Parker and Stone consider the episode one of their worst, with Parker saying, "That did not turn out well. I had higher hopes for that. If we were going to have Oprah's butthole and vagina and the gun and everything, it should have been in a show with the boys, not the towel." Stone called the episode, "weird on top of weird with weird in the middle. I'd erase that one. I think you could take that show and split it into two different shows. But putting it together, it just feels like, 'What the fuck is this crap? Why am I watching this? I tuned in to watch South Park. I did not tune in to watch Oprah's vagina talk to her butthole and a towel.'"[5]
Home release[edit]
"A Million Little Fibers", along with the thirteen other episodes from South Park's tenth season, was released on a three-disc DVD set in the United States on August 21, 2007. The set includes brief audio commentaries by series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone for each episode.[6]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "James Frey and the A Million Little Pieces Controversy". Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Jump up ^ url=https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?series=tt0121955&view=simple&count=250&sort=user_rating,asc&ref_=tt_eps_rhs_sm
^ Jump up to: a b Parker, Trey; Stone, Matt (2006). South Park season ten DVD commentary for the episode "A Million Little Fibers" (DVD). Comedy Central.
Jump up ^ Goldman, Eric (April 20, 2006). "South Park: A Million Little Fibers Review". IGN. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
Jump up ^ "'South Park': Matt Stone and Trey Parker Name Their 15 Best Episodes (and 53 Worst)". Entertainment Weekly. October 11, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
Jump up ^ Iverson, Dan (November 22, 2006). "South Park: The Complete Tenth Season DVD Review". IGN. Retrieved April 30, 2017.
External links[edit]
"A Million Little Fibers" Full episode at South Park Studios
"A Million Little Fibers" Episode guide at South Park Studios
"A Million Little Fibers" on IMDb
"A Million Little Fibers" at TV.com
hide
v
t
e
South Park episodes
Seasons
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Season 10
"The Return of Chef"
"Smug Alert!"
"Cartoon Wars Part I"
"Cartoon Wars Part II"
"A Million Little Fibers"
"ManBearPig"
"Tsst"
"Make Love, Not Warcraft"
"Mystery of the Urinal Deuce"
"Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy"
"Hell on Earth 2006"
"Go God Go"
"Go God Go XII"
"Stanley's Cup"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Million_Little_Fibers&oldid=841617595"
Categories:
American television episodes about cannabis
Oprah Winfrey
South Park (season 10) episodes
Hidden categories:
TV.com template using numeric id
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Magyar
Nederlands
Português
Русский
Bahasa Hulontalo
Edit links
This page was last edited on 16 May 2018, at 23:03 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: b

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

values: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;font-weight: normal; background: #CCCCFF; padding: 0.25em 1em; line-height: normal;

value: span

attrs: colspan style

values: text-align:center;font-weight: bold; font-size: 110%

value: abbr

attrs: scope style

values:
row
white-space: nowrap

attrs: href title

values: text-align:center;background: #CCCCFF; padding: 0.25em 1em; line-height: 1.5em;

values: width: 50%; padding: 0.2em 0.1em 0.2em 0; text-align: center;

values: width: 50%; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.1em; text-align: center;

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0793257/
external text

values:
col
navbox-title
2
background-color: #c7e1d6

values:
navbox-abovebelow
2
background-color: #c7e1d6

values:
row
navbox-group
background-color: #c7e1d6;width:1%

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:American television episodes about cannabis

values: Category:South Park (season 10) episodes

values: Category:TV.com template using numeric id

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/A_Million_Little_Fibers
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: Миллион маленьких волокон – Russian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-A_Million_Little_Fibers rootpage-A_Million_Little_Fibers skin-vector action-view


text:
File:Grease car race LA river.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
File
File history
File usage
Metadata
No higher resolution available.
Grease_car_race_LA_river.jpg (484 × 205 pixels, file size: 25 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Open in Media ViewerConfiguration
Non-free media information and use rationale true for Los Angeles River
Description
A screenshot of the car race in the LA River culvert from the film Grease
Source
http://www.wmanthony.com/news/labels/Biscuit%20Company%20Lofts.html
Article
Los Angeles River
Portion used
all
Low resolution?
yes (area of this image is equivalent to a film poster at 300x400)
Purpose of use
The canalized L.A. River culvert has been used in numerous films and television shows as a location for car chases, races, the dumping of dead bodies, etc. (During most of the year the river is a trickle and the culvert is almost completely dry.) The scene from Grease is a particualrly well-known and notable example, and serves in the article to illustrate this use of the river culvert as a shooting location for films and television.
Replaceable?
any image which serves this purpose will necessarily be non-free
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Los Angeles River//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grease_car_race_LA_river.jpg
Licensing:[edit]
This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots
for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.
Fair use
true
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time
Thumbnail
Dimensions
User
Comment
current 06:34, 28 November 2017 484 × 205 (25 KB) Theo's Little Bot (talk | contribs) Reduce size of non-free image (BOT - disable)
19:37, 29 November 2011 No thumbnail 583 × 248 (64 KB) Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) FUR (area is equivalent to a film poster at 300x400)
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage
The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):
Grease (film)
Los Angeles River
Metadata
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.
Software used
Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
File change date and time
21:15, 12 August 2006
Color space
sRGB
Show extended details
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Grease_car_race_LA_river.jpg&oldid=813958672"
Categories:
Screenshots of films
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia non-free files with valid backlink
All non-free media
Non-free images with NFUR stated
Files with no machine-readable author
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
File
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Print/export
Download as PDF
Languages
This page was last edited on 6 December 2017, at 03:55.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: li

value: ul

value: img

attrs: alt src width height data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: class id

values: fullImageLink file

attrs: href class title

attrs: href class

values: mw-mmv-view-expanded mw-ui-button mw-ui-icon mw-ui-icon-before

values: mw-mmv-view-config mw-ui-button mw-ui-icon mw-ui-icon-element

values: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline

values: background: #d8e0ff; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 0.4em; width: 15%; font-size: 12pt

values: background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; width: 15%

values: background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; white-space: nowrap

values: toccolours licensetpl fileinfotpl fileinfotpl-type-fairuse

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: plainlinks imbox imbox-license licensetpl

values:
mw-imagepage-content
en
ltr
mw-content-ltr mw-parser-output

values: Thumbnail for version as of 06:34, 28 November 2017

values:
/wiki/User:Theo%27s_Little_Bot
mw-userlink
User:Theo's Little Bot

values:
/wiki/User_talk:Theo%27s_Little_Bot
mw-usertoollinks-talk
User talk:Theo's Little Bot

values:
/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken
mw-userlink
User:Beyond My Ken

values:
/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken
mw-usertoollinks-talk
User talk:Beyond My Ken

values:
/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_CS_Windows
mw-redirect
Adobe Photoshop CS Windows

values: Category:Wikipedia non-free files with valid backlink

values: Category:Non-free images with NFUR stated

values: Category:Files with no machine-readable author

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/File:Grease_car_race_LA_river.jpg
View the file page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-6 ns-subject page-File_Grease_car_race_LA_river_jpg rootpage-File_Grease_car_race_LA_river_jpg skin-vector action-view


text:
Two Treatises of Government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Two Treatises of Government
Title page from the first edition
Author
John Locke
Country
England
Language
English
Subject
Political philosophy
Publisher
Awnsham Churchill
Publication date
1689
(dated 1690)
Media type
Print
Part of a series on
John Locke
Social contract
Limited government
Tabula rasa
State of nature
Right to property
Labor theory of property
Lockean proviso
Works
(listed chronologically)
Fundamental Constitutions
of Carolina
A Letter Concerning Toleration
Two Treatises of Government
An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding
Some Thoughts
Concerning Education
Of the Conduct of
the Understanding
People
Robert Filmer
Thomas Hobbes
1st Earl of Shaftesbury
David Hume
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Adam Smith
Immanuel Kant
Thomas Jefferson
Related topics
Empiricism
Classical liberalism
Polish Brethren
v
t
e
Two Treatises of Government (or Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government) is a work of political philosophy published anonymously in 1689 by John Locke. The First Treatise attacks patriarchalism in the form of sentence-by-sentence refutation of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, while the Second Treatise outlines Locke's ideas for a more civilized society based on natural rights and contract theory.
This publication contrasts former political works by Locke himself. In Two Tracts on Government, written in 1660, Locke defends a very conservative position; however Locke never published it.[1] In 1669 Locke co-authored the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which endorses aristocracy, slavery and serfdom.[2][3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Historical context
2 Publication history
3 Main ideas
4 First Treatise
5 Second Treatise
5.1 State of nature
5.2 Conquest and slavery
5.3 Property
5.4 Representative government
5.5 Right of revolution
6 Reception and influence
6.1 Britain
6.2 North America
7 Controversies regarding interpretation
8 References
9 External links
Historical context[edit]
King James II of England (VII of Scotland) was overthrown in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians and the stadtholder of the Dutch Republic William III of Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange), who as a result ascended the English throne as William III of England. This is known as the Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688. Locke claims in the "Preface" to the Two Treatises that its purpose is to justify William III's ascension to the throne, though Peter Laslett suggests that the bulk of the writing was instead completed between 1679–1680 (and subsequently revised until Locke was driven into exile in 1683).[4] According to Laslett, Locke was writing his Two Treatises during the Exclusion Crisis, which attempted to prevent James II from ever taking the throne in the first place. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke's mentor, patron and friend, introduced the bill, but it was ultimately unsuccessful. Richard Ashcraft, following in Laslett's suggestion that the Two Treatises were written before the Revolution, objected that Shaftesbury's party did not advocate revolution during the Exclusion Crisis. He suggests that they are instead better associated with the revolutionary conspiracies that swirled around what would come to be known as the Rye House Plot.[5] Locke, Shaftesbury and many others were forced into exile; some, such as Sidney, were even executed for treason. Locke knew his work was dangerous—he never acknowledged his authorship within his lifetime.
Publication history[edit]
The only edition of the Treatises published in America during the 18th century (1773)
Two Treatises was first published, anonymously, in December 1689 (following printing conventions of the time, its title page was marked 1690). Locke was unhappy with this edition, complaining to the publisher about its many errors. For the rest of his life, he was intent on republishing the Two Treatises in a form that better reflected his meaning. Peter Laslett, one of the foremost Locke scholars, has suggested that Locke held the printers to a higher "standard of perfection" than the technology of the time would permit.[6] Be that as it may, the first edition was indeed replete with errors. The second edition was even worse, and finally printed on cheap paper and sold to the poor. The third edition was much improved, but Locke was still not satisfied.[7] He made corrections to the third edition by hand and entrusted the publication of the fourth to his friends, as he died before it could be brought out.[8]
The Two Treatises begin with a Preface announcing what Locke hopes to achieve, but he also mentions that more than half of his original draft, occupying a space between the First and Second Treatises, has been irretrievably lost.[9] Peter Laslett maintains that, while Locke may have added or altered some portions in 1689, he did not make any revisions to accommodate for the missing section; he argues, for example, that the end of the First Treatise breaks off in mid-sentence.[10]
In 1691 Two Treatises was translated into French by David Mazzel, a French Huguenot living in the Netherlands. This translation left out Locke's "Preface," all of the First Treatise, and the first chapter of the Second Treatise (which summarised Locke's conclusions in the First Treatise). It was in this form that Locke's work was reprinted during the 18th century in France and in this form that Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau were exposed to it.[11] The only American edition from the 18th century was printed in 1773 in Boston; it, too, left out all of these sections. There were no other American editions until the 20th century.[12]
Main ideas[edit]
Two Treatises is divided into the First Treatise and the Second Treatise. The original title of the Second Treatise appears to have been simply "Book II," corresponding to the title of the First Treatise, "Book I." Before publication, however, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government."[13] The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha, which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.
The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.
First Treatise[edit]
Title page from Filmer's Patriarcha (1680)
The First Treatise is an extended attack on Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. Locke's argument proceeds along two lines: first, he undercuts the Scriptural support that Filmer had offered for his thesis, and second he argues that the acceptance of Filmer's thesis can lead only to slavery (and absurdity). Locke chose Filmer as his target, he says, because of his reputation and because he "carried this Argument [jure divino] farthest, and is supposed to have brought it to perfection" (1st Tr., § 5).
Filmer's text presented an argument for a divinely ordained, hereditary, absolute monarchy. According to Filmer, the Biblical Adam in his role as father possessed unlimited power over his children and this authority passed down through the generations. Locke attacks this on several grounds. Accepting that fatherhood grants authority, he argues, it would do so only by the act of begetting, and so cannot be transmitted to one's children because only God can create life. Nor is the power of a father over his children absolute, as Filmer would have it; Locke points to the joint power parents share over their children outlined in the Bible. In the Second Treatise Locke returns to a discussion of parental power. (Both of these discussions have drawn the interest of modern feminists such as Carole Pateman.)
Filmer also suggested that Adam's absolute authority came from his ownership over all the world. To this, Locke rebuts that the world was originally held in common (a theme that will return in the Second Treatise). But, even if it were not, he argues, God's grant to Adam covered only the land and brute animals, not human beings. Nor could Adam, or his heir, leverage this grant to enslave mankind, for the law of nature forbids reducing one's fellows to a state of desperation, if one possesses a sufficient surplus to maintain oneself securely. And even if this charity were not commanded by reason, Locke continues, such a strategy for gaining dominion would prove only that the foundation of government lies in consent.
Locke intimates in the First Treatise that the doctrine of divine right of kings (jure divino) will eventually be the downfall of all governments. In his final chapter Locke asks, "Who heir?" If Filmer is correct, there should be only one rightful king in all the world—the heir of Adam. But since it is impossible to discover the true heir of Adam, no government, under Filmer's principles, can require that its members obey its rulers. Filmer must therefore say that men are duty-bound to obey their present rulers. Locke writes:
I think he is the first Politician, who, pretending to settle Government upon its true Basis, and to establish the Thrones of lawful Princes, ever told the World, That he was properly a King, whose Manner of Government was by Supreme Power, by what Means soever he obtained it; which in plain English is to say, that Regal and Supreme Power is properly and truly his, who can by any Means seize upon it; and if this be, to be properly a King, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an Usurper. (1st Tr., § 79)
Locke ends the First Treatise by examining the history told in the Bible and the history of the world since then; he concludes that there is no evidence to support Filmer's hypothesis. According to Locke, no king has ever claimed that his authority rested upon his being the heir of Adam. It is Filmer, Locke alleges, that is the innovator in politics, not those who assert the natural equality and freedom of man.
Second Treatise[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In the Second Treatise Locke develops a number of notable themes. It begins with a depiction of the state of nature, wherein individuals are under no obligation to obey one another but are each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. It also covers conquest and slavery, property, representative government, and the right of revolution.
State of nature[edit]
Locke defines the state of nature thus:
To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings—as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties—are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.[14][15]
The work of Thomas Hobbes made theories based upon a state of nature popular in 17th-century England, even as most of those who employed such arguments were deeply troubled by his absolutist conclusions. Locke's state of nature can be seen in light of this tradition. There is not and never has been any divinely ordained monarch over the entire world, Locke argues. However, the fact that the natural state of humanity is without an institutionalized government does not mean it is lawless. Human beings are still subject to the laws of God and nature. In contrast to Hobbes, who posited the state of nature as a hypothetical possibility, Locke takes great pains to show that such a state did indeed exist. Actually, it still exists in the area of international relations where there is not and is never likely to be any legitimate overarching government (i.e., one directly chosen by all the people subject to it). Whereas Hobbes stresses the disadvantages of the state of nature, Locke points to its good points. It is free, if full of continual dangers (2nd Tr., § 123). Finally, the proper alternative to the natural state is not political dictatorship/tyranny but democratically elected government and the effective protection of basic human rights to life, liberty, and property under the rule of law.
Nobody in the natural state has the political power to tell others what to do. However, everybody has the right to authoritatively pronounce justice and administer punishment for breaches of the natural law. Thus, men are not free to do whatever they please. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that... no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (2nd Tr., § 6). The specifics of this law are unwritten, however, and so each is likely to misapply it in his own case. Lacking any commonly recognised, impartial judge, there is no way to correct these misapplications or to effectively restrain those who violate the law of nature.
The law of nature is therefore ill enforced in the state of nature.
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., § 123)
It is to avoid the state of war that often occurs in the state of nature, and to protect their private property that men enter into civil or political society, i.e., state of society.
Conquest and slavery[edit]
Ch. 4 ("Of Slavery") and Ch. 16 ("Of Conquest") are sources of some confusion: the former provides a justification for slavery, the latter, the rights of conquerors. Because the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina provided that a master had perfect authority over his slaves, some[who?] have taken these chapters to be an apology for the institution of slavery in Colonial America.
Most Locke scholars[who?] roundly reject this reading, as it is directly at odds with the text. The extent of Locke's involvement in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions is a matter of some debate, but even attributing full culpability for its contents and for his having profited from the Atlantic slave trade, the majority of experts will concede that Locke may have been a hypocrite in this matter, but are adamant that no part of the Two Treatises can be used to provide theoretical support for slavery by bare right of conquest.
In the rhetoric of 17th-century England, those who opposed the increasing power of the kings claimed that the country was headed for a condition of slavery. Locke therefore asks, facetiously, under what conditions such slavery might be justified. He notes that slavery cannot come about as a matter of contract (which became the basis of Locke's political system). To be a slave is to be subject to the absolute, arbitrary power of another; as men do not have this power even over themselves, they cannot sell or otherwise grant it to another. One that is deserving of death, i.e., who has violated the law of nature, may be enslaved. This is, however, but the state of war continued (2nd Tr., § 24), and even one justly a slave therefore has no obligation to obedience.
In providing a justification for slavery, he has rendered all forms of slavery as it actually exists invalid. Moreover, as one may not submit to slavery, there is a moral injunction to attempt to throw off and escape it whenever it looms. Most scholars take this to be Locke's point regarding slavery: submission to absolute monarchy is a violation of the law of nature, for one does not have the right to enslave oneself.
The legitimacy of an English king depended on (somehow) demonstrating descent from William the Conqueror: the right of conquest was therefore a topic rife with constitutional connotations. Locke does not say that all subsequent English monarchs have been illegitimate, but he does make their rightful authority dependent solely upon their having acquired the people's approbation.
Locke first argues that, clearly, aggressors in an unjust war can claim no right of conquest: everything they despoil may be retaken as soon as the dispossessed have the strength to do so. Their children retain this right, so an ancient usurpation does not become lawful with time. The rest of the chapter then considers what rights a just conqueror might have.
The argument proceeds negatively: Locke proposes one power a conqueror could gain, and then demonstrates how in point of fact that power cannot be claimed. He gains no authority over those that conquered with him, for they did not wage war unjustly: thus, whatever other right William may have had in England, he could not claim kingship over his fellow Normans by right of conquest. The subdued are under the conqueror's despotical authority, but only those who actually took part in the fighting. Those who were governed by the defeated aggressor do not become subject to the authority of the victorious aggressor. They lacked the power to do an unjust thing, and so could not have granted that power to their governors: the aggressor therefore was not acting as their representative, and they cannot be punished for his actions. And while the conqueror may seize the person of the vanquished aggressor in an unjust war, he cannot seize the latter's property: he may not drive the innocent wife and children of a villain into poverty for another's unjust acts. While the property is technically that of the defeated, his innocent dependents have a claim that the just conqueror must honour. He cannot seize more than the vanquished could forfeit, and the latter had no right to ruin his dependents. (He may, however, demand and take reparations for the damages suffered in the war, so long as these leave enough in the possession of the aggressor's dependants for their survival).
In so arguing, Locke accomplishes two objectives. First, he neutralises the claims of those who see all authority flowing from William I by the latter's right of conquest. In the absence of any other claims to authority (e.g., Filmer's primogeniture from Adam, divine anointment, etc.), all kings would have to found their authority on the consent of the governed. Second, he removes much of the incentive for conquest in the first place, for even in a just war the spoils are limited to the persons of the defeated and reparations sufficient only to cover the costs of the war, and even then only when the aggressor's territory can easily sustain such costs (i.e., it can never be a profitable endeavour). Needless to say, the bare claim that one's spoils are the just compensation for a just war does not suffice to make it so, in Locke's view.
Property[edit]
In the Second Treatise, Locke claims that civil society was created for the protection of property.[16] In saying this, he relies on the etymological root of "property," Latin proprius, or what is one's own, including oneself (cf. French propre). Thus, by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." By saying that political society was established for the better protection of property, he claims that it serves the private (and non-political) interests of its constituent members: it does not promote some good that can be realised only in community with others (e.g., virtue).
For this account to work, individuals must possess some property outside of society, i.e., in the state of nature: the state cannot be the sole origin of property, declaring what belongs to whom. If the purpose of government is the protection of property, the latter must exist independently of the former. Filmer had said that, if there even were a state of nature (which he denied), everything would be held in common: there could be no private property, and hence no justice or injustice (injustice being understood as treating someone else's goods, liberty, or life as if it were one's own). Thomas Hobbes had argued the same thing. Locke therefore provides an account of how material property could arise in the absence of government.
He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labour: to deny him his labour would be to make him a slave. One can therefore take items from the common store of goods by mixing one's labour with them: an apple on the tree is of no use to anyone—it must be picked to be eaten—and the picking of that apple makes it one's own. In an alternate argument, Locke claims that we must allow it to become private property lest all mankind have starved, despite the bounty of the world. A man must be allowed to eat, and thus have what he has eaten be his own (such that he could deny others a right to use it). The apple is surely his when he swallows it, when he chews it, when he bites into it, when he brings it to his mouth, etc.: it became his as soon as he mixed his labour with it (by picking it from the tree).
This does not yet say why an individual is allowed to take from the common store of nature. There is a necessity to do so to eat, but this does not yet establish why others must respect one's property, especially as they labour under the like necessity. Locke assures his readers that the state of nature is a state of plenty: one may take from communal store if one leaves a) enough and b) as good for others, and since nature is bountiful, one can take all that one can use without taking anything from someone else. Moreover, one can take only so much as one can use before it spoils. There are then two provisos regarding what one can take, the "enough and as good" condition and "spoilage."
Gold does not rot. Neither does silver, or any other precious metal or gem. They are, moreover, useless, their aesthetic value not entering into the equation. One can heap up as much of them as one wishes, or take them in trade for food. By the tacit consent of mankind, they become a form of money (one accepts gold in exchange for apples with the understanding that someone else will accept that gold in exchange for wheat). One can therefore avoid the spoilage limitation by selling all that one has amassed before it rots; the limits on acquisition thus disappear.
In this way, Locke argues that a full economic system could, in principle, exist within the state of nature. Property could therefore predate the existence of government, and thus society can be dedicated to the protection of property.
Representative government[edit]
Locke did not demand a republic. Rather, Locke felt that a legitimate contract could easily exist between citizens and a monarchy, an oligarchy or some mixed form (2nd Tr., sec. 132). Locke uses the term Common-wealth to mean "not a democracy, or any form of government, but any independent community" (sec. 133) and "whatever form the Common-wealth is under, the Ruling Power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions." (sec 137)
Locke does, however, make a distinction between an executive (e.g. a monarchy), a "Power always in being" (sec 144) that must perpetually execute the law, and the legislative that is the "supreme power of the Common-wealth" (sec 134) and does not have to be always in being. (sec 153) Furthermore, governments are charged by the consent of the individual, "i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them." (sec 140)
His notions of people's rights and the role of civil government provided strong support for the intellectual movements of both revolutions.
Right of revolution[edit]
The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.
Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution in Two Treatises of Government: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” (sec. 222) [17]
Reception and influence[edit]
Britain[edit]
Although the Two Treatises would become well known in the second half of the 18th century, they were somewhat neglected when published. Between 1689 and 1694, around 200 tracts and treatises were published concerning the legitimacy of the Glorious Revolution. Three of these mention Locke, two of which were written by friends of Locke.[18] When Hobbes published the Leviathan in 1651, by contrast, dozens of texts were immediately written in response to it. As Mark Goldie explains: "Leviathan was a monolithic and unavoidable presence for political writers in Restoration England in a way that in the first half of the eighteenth the Two Treatises was not."[19]
While the Two Treatises did not become popular until the 1760s, ideas from them did start to become important earlier in the century. According to Goldie, "the crucial moment was 1701" and "the occasion was the Kentish petition." The pamphlet war that ensued was one of the first times Locke's ideas were invoked in a public debate, most notably by Daniel Defoe.[20] Locke's ideas did not go unchallenged and the periodical The Rehearsal, for example, launched a "sustained and sophisticated assault” against the Two Treatises and endorsed the ideology of patriarchalism.[21] Not only did patriarchalism continue to be a legitimate political theory in the 18th century, but as J. G. A. Pocock and others have gone to great lengths to demonstrate, so was civic humanism and classical republicanism. Pocock has argued that Locke's Two Treatises had very little effect on British political theory; he maintains that there was no contractarian revolution. Rather, he sees these other long-standing traditions as far more important for 18th-century British politics.[22]
In the middle of the 18th century, Locke's position as a political philosopher suddenly rose in prominence. For example, he was invoked by those arguing on behalf of the American colonies during the Stamp Act debates of 1765–66.[23] Marginalized groups such as women, Dissenters and those campaigning to abolish the slave trade all invoked Lockean ideals. But at the same time, as Goldie describes it, "a wind of doubt about Locke's credentials gathered into a storm. The sense that Locke's philosophy had been misappropriated increasingly turned to a conviction that it was erroneous.”[24] By the 1790s Locke was associated with Rousseau and Voltaire and being blamed for the American and French Revolutions as well as for the perceived secularisation of society.[25] By 1815, Locke's portrait was taken down from Christ Church, his alma mater (it was later restored to a position of prominence, and currently hangs in the dining hall of the college).
North America[edit]
Locke's influence during the American Revolutionary period is disputed. While it is easy to point to specific instances of Locke's Two Treatises being invoked, the extent of the acceptance of Locke's ideals and the role they played in the American Revolution are far from clear. The Two Treatises are echoed in phrases in the Declaration of Independence and writings by Samuel Adams that attempted to gain support for the rebellion. Of Locke's influence Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical & Moral sciences".[26][27] The colonists frequently cited Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which synthesised Lockean political philosophy with the common law tradition. Louis Hartz, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, took it for granted that Locke was the political philosopher of the revolution.
This view was challenged by Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood, who argued that the revolution was not a struggle over property, taxation, and rights, but rather "a Machiavellian effort to preserve the young republic's 'virtue' from the corrupt and corrupting forces of English politics."[28] Garry Wills, on the other hand, maintains that it was neither the Lockean tradition nor the classical republican tradition that drove the revolution, but instead Scottish moral philosophy, a political philosophy that based its conception of society on friendship, sensibility and the controlled passions.[28] Thomas Pangle and Michael Zuckert have countered, demonstrating numerous elements in the thought of more influential founders that have a Lockean pedigree.[29] They argue that there is no conflict between Lockean thought and classical Republicanism.[30][31][32][33]
Controversies regarding interpretation[edit]
Locke’s political philosophy is often compared and contrasted with Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. The motivation in both cases is self-preservation with Hobbes arguing the need of an absolute monarch to prevent the war of “all against all” inherent in anarchy while Locke argues that the protection of life, liberty, and property can be achieve by a parliamentary process that protects, not violates, one’s rights.
Leo Strauss and C. B. Macpherson stress the continuity of thought. In their view Locke and Hobbes describe an atomistic man largely driven by a hedonistic materialistic acquisitiveness. Strauss’ Locke is little more than Hobbes in “sheep’s clothing.”[34] C. B. Macpherson argued in his Political Theory of Possessive Individualism that Locke sets the stage for unlimited acquisition and appropriation of property by the powerful creating gross inequality. Government is the protector of interests of capitalists while the “labouring class [are] not considered to have an interest.”[35][36]
Unlike Macpherson, James Tully finds no evidence that Locke specifically advocates capitalism. In his A Discourse on Property, Tully describes Locke’s view of man as a social dependent, with Christian sensibilities, and a God-given duty to care for others. Property, in Tully’s explanation of Locke, belong to the community as the public commons but becomes “private” so long as the property owner, or more correctly the “custodian,” serves the community.[37] Zuckert believes Tully is reading into Locke rights and duties that just aren’t there.[38] Huyler finds that Locke explicitly condemned government privileges for rich, contrary to Macpherson’s pro-capitalism critique, but also rejected subsidies to aid the poor, in contrast to Tully’s social justice apologetics.[39]
The Cambridge School of political thought, led principally by Quentin Skinner, J. G. A. Pocock, Richard Ashcraft, and Peter Laslett, uses a historical methodology to situate Locke in the political context of his times. But they also restrict his importance to those times.[40] Ashcraft’s Locke takes the side of the burgeoning merchant class against the aristocracy.[41] Neal Wood puts Locke on the side of the agrarian interests, not the manufacturing bourgeoisie.[42]
Jerome Huyler and Michael. P. Zuckert approach Locke in the broader context of his oeuvre and historical influence. Locke is situated within changing religious, philosophical, scientific, and political dimensions of 17th century England. Objecting to the use of the contemporary concept of economic man to describe Locke’s view of human nature, Huyler emphases the “virtue of industriousness” of Locke’s Protestant England. Productive work is man’s earthly function or calling, ordained by God and required by self-preservation. The government’s protection of property rights insures that the results of industry, i.e. “fruits of one’s labor,” are secure. Locke’s prohibition of ill-gotten gains, whether for well-connected gentry or the profligate, is not a lack of Locke’s foresight to the problems in the latter stages of liberalism but an application of equal protection of the law to every individual.[31]
Richard Pipes argues that Locke holds a labor theory of value that leads to the socialist critique that those not engaging in physical labor exploit wage earners.[43] Huyler, relying on Locke’s Essays on the Law of Nature shows that reason is the most fundamental virtue, underwrites all productive virtue, and leads to human flourishing or happiness in an Aristotelean sense.[44]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, John Locke.
Jump up ^ Armitage, David Armitage, D. (2004). John Locke, Carolina, and the two treatises of government. Political Theory, 32(5), 602–27.
Jump up ^ Walbert, D. (2008). A little kingdom in Carolina.
Jump up ^ Laslett, "Introduction," 59–61.
Jump up ^ Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics.
Jump up ^ Laslett, Peter. "Introduction." Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988), 9.
Jump up ^ See Two Treatises of Government: In The Former the False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government (3 ed.). London: Awnsham and John Churchill. 1698. Retrieved 20 November 2014. via Google Books
Jump up ^ Laslett, "Introduction," 8–9.
Jump up ^ Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988), 137.
Jump up ^ Laslett, "English Revolution," 42.
Jump up ^ Laslett, "Introduction," 12–13.
Jump up ^ Laslett, "Introduction," 14–15.
Jump up ^ Laslett, 266.
Jump up ^ Two Treatises On Government: A Translation Into Modern English, ISR/Google Books, 2009, p. 70.
Jump up ^ [1]
Jump up ^ Second Treatise, Sec. 85
Jump up ^ Powell, Jim (1 August 1996): "John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property". In: The Freemann. Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, New York.
Jump up ^ Goldie, Mark. “Introduction.” The Reception of Locke's Politics. 6 vols. London: Pickering & Chatto (1999), xxii.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxii.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxxi.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxiv.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxviii.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxxv.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction, xxxviii.
Jump up ^ Goldie, "Introduction," xxxviii.
Jump up ^ "The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743–1826 Bacon, Locke, and Newton". Retrieved 2009-07-12. Bacon, Locke and Newton, whose pictures I will trouble you to have copied for me: and as I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical & Moral sciences.
Jump up ^ http://explorer.monticello.org/text/index.php?id=82&type=4 Jefferson called Bacon, Newton, and Locke, who had so indelibly shaped his ideas, "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced"
^ Jump up to: a b Goldie, "Introduction," liii.
Jump up ^ Pangle, Spirit of Modern Republicanism; Zuckert, Launching Liberalism, Natural Rights Republic.
Jump up ^ Zuckert 1994, chpt. 7–10
^ Jump up to: a b Huyler 1995, chpt. 4,5
Jump up ^ Michael P. Zuckert (2005). Ellen Frankel Paul; Fred D. Miller Jr.; Jeffrey Paul, eds. Natural Rights Liberalism from Locke to Nozick. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-61514-3.
Jump up ^ Holly Brewer (2005). By Birth Or Consent: Children, Law, and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-2950-1.
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, pp. 13, 130
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, pp. 102, 120
Jump up ^ Macpherson 1962, p. 228
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, pp. 130–35
Jump up ^ Zuckert 1994, p. 367
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, pp. 162–71
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, p. 42
Jump up ^ Ashcraft 1986
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, pp. 104–05
Jump up ^ Pipes, Richard (1999). Property and Freedom. Knopf. p. 36. ISBN 978-0375404986.
Jump up ^ Huyler 1995, chpt. 3
Bibliography
Ashcraft, Richard (1986), Revolutionary Politics and Locke's "Two Treatises of Government", Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-6911-0205-4
Ashcraft, Richard (1987), Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Boston: Unwin Hyman
Dunn, John (1969), The Political Thought of John Locke:An Historical Account of the Argument of the 'Two Treatises of Government', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-5210-7408-7
Huyler, Jerome (1995), Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era, Lawrence: University Press Of Kansas, ISBN 978-0-7006-1108-9
Laslett, Peter (1956). "The English Revolution and Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government'". Cambridge Historical Journal. 12 (1): 40–55. JSTOR 3021052.
Laslett, Peter (1988), Locke: Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-5213-5448-6
Macpherson, C. B. (1962), Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-1988-1084-1
Pangle, Thomas L. (1988), The Spirit of Modern Republicanism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-2266-4540-7
Strauss, Leo (1953), Natural Right and History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-2267-7694-1
Tully, James (1980), A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-22830-1
Ward, Lee. (2010), John Locke and Modern Life. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521192804
Waldron, Jeremy (2002), God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-5218-1001-2
Zuckert, Michael. P. (1994), Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-6910-3463-8
Zuckert, Michael. P. (2002), Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, ISBN 978-0-7006-1173-7
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Two Treatises of Government
"John Locke". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"John Locke: Political Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Two Treatises of Government Book I Book II
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke' at Project Gutenberg
Two Treatises of Civil Government public domain audiobook at LibriVox
Extensive Locke bibliography
John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) [1689] on The Online Library of Liberty
The Second Treatise of Civil Government, lightly edited for easier reading
[hide]
v
t
e
Property
By owner
Common
Common land
Communal land
Community
Cooperative
Private
Public
State
Crown property
Crown land
By nature
Croft
Intangible
Intellectual
indigenous
Personal
Tangible
immovable
real
Common resources
Common-pool resource
Digital
Global
Information
Knowledge
Theory
Bundle of rights
Commodity
fictitious commodities
Common good (economics)
Excludability
First possession
appropriation
homestead principle
Free rider problem
Game theory
Georgism
Gift economy
Labor theory of property
Law of rent
rent-seeking
Legal plunder
Natural rights
Ownership
common
customary
self
state
Property rights
primogeniture
usufruct
women's
Right to property
Rivalry
Tragedy of the commons
anticommons
Applications
Acequia (watercourse)
Ejido (agrarian land)
Forest types
Inheritance
Land tenure
Property law
alienation
easement
restraint on alienation
real estate
title
Rights
Air
Fishing
Forest-dwelling (India)
Freedom to roam
Grazing
pannage
Hunting
Land
aboriginal
indigenous
squatting
Littoral
Mineral
Bergregal
Right of way
Water
prior-appropriation
riparian
Disposession/
redistribution
Bioprospecting
Collectivization
Eminent domain
Enclosure
Eviction
Expropriation
Farhud
Forced migration
population transfer
Illegal fishing
Illegal logging
Land reform
Legal plunder
Piracy
Poaching
Primitive accumulation
Privatization
Regulatory taking
Slavery
bride-buying
human trafficking
wage
wife selling
Tax
inheritance
poll
progressive
property
Theft
Scholars
(key work)
Frédéric Bastiat
Ronald Coase
Henry George
Garrett Hardin
David Harvey
John Locke
Two Treatises of Government
Karl Marx
Marcel Mauss
The Gift
John Stuart Mill
Elinor Ostrom
Karl Polanyi
The Great Transformation
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
What Is Property?
David Ricardo
Murray N. Rothbard
The Ethics of Liberty
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The Social Contract
Adam Smith
The Wealth of Nations
Categories: Property
Property law
by country
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Treatises_of_Government&oldid=807736203"
Categories:
1689 books
Books in political philosophy
Classical liberalism
Political books
Republicanism
Rights
Works by John Locke
Books about sovereignty
Hidden categories:
EngvarB from September 2013
Use dmy dates from September 2013
Articles needing additional references from March 2008
All articles needing additional references
All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2014
Articles with Project Gutenberg links
Articles with LibriVox links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Ido
Íslenska
Italiano
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Suomi
Українська
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 October 2017, at 21:14.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: i

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: caption

value: td

value: tr

values: Portrait of John Locke by Sir Godfrey Kneller (1697)

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;padding-top:0;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em;padding-top:0 0.25em 0.5em;font-size:175%;font-weight:normal;

values: padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.8em;;font-style:italic;

values: Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;width:18.0em;

values:
/wiki/Natural_rights
mw-redirect
Natural rights

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Sir_Robert_Filmer
mw-redirect
Sir Robert Filmer

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced

values:
/wiki/Early_Modern_Britain
mw-redirect
Early Modern Britain

values: The material near this tag possibly uses too-vague attribution or weasel words. (January 2014)

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

values:
/wiki/Slavery_in_Colonial_America
mw-redirect
Slavery in Colonial America

values:
/wiki/William_I_of_England
mw-redirect
William I of England

values:
/wiki/Civic_humanism
mw-redirect
Civic humanism

values: United States Declaration of Independence

values: Edit section: Controversies regarding interpretation

values:
/wiki/Economic_man
mw-redirect
Economic man

values:
/wiki/John_Dunn_(political_scientist)
mw-redirect
John Dunn (political scientist)

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3021052

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po

values:
/wiki/Common_property
mw-redirect
Common property

values:
/wiki/State_property
mw-redirect
State property

values:
/wiki/Common_resources
mw-redirect
Common resources

values:
/wiki/Appropriation_(economics)
mw-redirect
Appropriation (economics)

values:
/wiki/Free_rider_problem
mw-redirect
Free rider problem

values: List of types of formally designated forests

values: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

values:
/wiki/Forced_migration
mw-redirect
Forced migration

values:
/wiki/Illegal_fishing
mw-redirect
Illegal fishing

values:
/wiki/Tax_per_head
mw-redirect
Tax per head

values:
/wiki/Murray_N._Rothbard
mw-redirect
Murray N. Rothbard

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Use dmy dates from September 2013

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from March 2008

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

values: Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2014

values: Category:Articles with Project Gutenberg links

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values:
/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: Два трактата за управлението – Bulgarian

values: Zwei Abhandlungen über die Regierung – German

values: Dos tratados sobre el gobierno civil – Spanish

values: دو رساله درباره حکومت – Persian

values: Dois Tratados sobre o Governo – Portuguese

values: Два трактата о правлении – Russian

values: Два трактати про правління – Ukrainian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Two_Treatises_of_Government rootpage-Two_Treatises_of_Government vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania is a series of essays written by the Pennsylvania lawyer and legislator John Dickinson (1732–1808) and published under the name "A Farmer" from 1767 to 1768. The twelve letters were widely read and reprinted throughout the thirteen colonies and were important in uniting the colonists against the Townshend Acts. The success of his letters earned Dickinson considerable fame.[1]
While acknowledging the power of Parliament in matters concerning the whole British Empire, Dickinson argued that the colonies were sovereign in their internal affairs. He thus argued that taxes laid upon the colonies by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue, rather than regulating trade, were unconstitutional.
In his letters, Dickinson foresees the possibility of future conflict between the colonies and Great Britain, but cautions against the use of violence until "the people are fully convinced":
If at length it becomes undoubted that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force. What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance can never be ascertained till they happen. Perhaps it may be allowable to say generally, that it never can be justifiable until the people are fully convinced that any further submission will be destructive to their happiness.
—  Letter III
According to Mel Bradford, "The manner of Dickinson’s twelve letters is well suited to their matter. In form they belong to the 'high' or 'sober' tradition of English political pamphleteering — as does Common Sense to its 'rough and ready' but popular counterpart."[2] Bradford argued that the letters had antecedents in the writings of "Milton, Swift, Addison, and Burke," as well as the authors of Cato's Letters and the Roman statesman Cicero.[2]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Early History of the Falls of Schuylkill, Manayunk, Schuylkill and Lehigh Navigation Companies, Fairmount Waterworks, Etc., by Chrles V. Hagner, 1869, reprinted by the University of Michigan, 2010
^ Jump up to: a b McCarthy, Daniel (2010-01-08) Right Rhetoric, The American Conservative
External links[edit]
Full text of letters
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania public domain audiobook at LibriVox
[show]
v
t
e
John Dickinson
5th President of Pennsylvania, 1782–1785
5th President of Delaware, 1781–1783
Second Continental Congress, 1775–1776, 1779–1781
First Continental Congress, 1774
Stamp Act Congress, 1765
Founding of the
United States
Declaration of Rights and Grievances (1765)
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767, 1768)
"The Liberty Song" (1768
United we stand, divided we fall)
Petition to the King (1774)
Signee, Continental Association (1774)
Pennsylvania Committee of Correspondence (1774–1776)
Letter to the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (1774)
Olive Branch Petition (1775)
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (co-wrote, 1775)
Committee of Secret Correspondence (1775–1776)
Model Treaty committee (1776)
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union (1776)
President, Annapolis Convention (1786)
Delegate, Constitutional Convention (1787)
Other events
Brigadier General, Pennsylvania militia
Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783
Delaware Constitution of 1792
Life and homes
Mary Norris Dickinson (wife)
Philemon Dickinson (brother)
Early life
Poplar Hall home
Fair Hill estate
Friends Burial Ground
Legacy
Dickinson College
Dickinson School of Law, Pennsylvania State University
John Dickinson High School
1776 (1969 musical,
1972 film)
John Adams (2008 miniseries)
Sons of Liberty (2015 miniseries)
Related
Claymont Stone School
American Revolution
patriots
[hide]
v
t
e
Origins of the American Revolution: writings
American resolves, declarations, petitions, essays and pamphlets prior to the Declaration of Independence (July 1776)
Following the
Stamp Act (1765)
Virginia Resolves (May 1765)
Braintree Instructions (September 1765)
Declaration of Rights and Grievances (October 1765)
An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies (1766)
Following the
Townshend Acts (1767)
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767, 1768)
Massachusetts Circular Letter (February 1768)
Journal of Occurrences (1768, 1769)
Virginia Association (May 1769)
Boston Pamphlet (1772)
Sheffield Declaration (January 1773)
Following the
Coercive Acts (1774)
Maryland
Chestertown Resolves (May 1774)
Bush River Resolution (March 1775)
Massachusetts
Suffolk Resolves (September 1774)
New York
Orangetown Resolutions (July 1774)
A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress (December 1774)
The Farmer Refuted (February 1775)
North Carolina
Mecklenburg Resolves or Declaration (May 1775)
Liberty Point Resolves (June 1775)
Tryon Resolves (August 1775)
Halifax Resolves (April 1776)
Virginia
Fairfax Resolves (July 1774)
Fincastle Resolutions (January 1775)
Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 1776)
1st Continental
Congress
Declaration and Resolves (October 1774)
Continental Association (October 1774)
Petition to the King (October 1774)
2nd Continental
Congress
Olive Branch Petition (July 1775)
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (July 1775)
May 15 preamble (May 1776)
Lee Resolution (July 1776)
Essays and pamphlets
"Letters to the inhabitants of Canada" (1774, 1775, 1776)
A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)
Novanglus (1775)
Common Sense (January 1776)
Thoughts on Government (Spring, 1776)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Letters_from_a_Farmer_in_Pennsylvania&oldid=802520196"
Categories:
Documents of the American Revolution
Pennsylvania in the American Revolution
1767 in the Thirteen Colonies
1768 in the Thirteen Colonies
American political philosophy literature
1768 documents
1767 documents
Hidden categories:
Articles with LibriVox links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 26 September 2017, at 17:50.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: class style

value: sup

value: p

values:
/wiki/British_Constitution
mw-redirect
British Constitution

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: Template talk:John Dickinson (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Governor_of_Pennsylvania
mw-redirect
Governor of Pennsylvania

values:
/wiki/President_of_Delaware
mw-redirect
President of Delaware

values:
/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence
mw-redirect
Committee of correspondence

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values: John Dickinson (Pennsylvania and Delaware)

values: Friends Meetinghouse (Wilmington, Delaware)

values: Pennsylvania State University - Dickinson Law

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template talk:American Revolution origins

values: United States Declaration of Independence

values: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress

values: nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Documents of the American Revolution

values: Category:Pennsylvania in the American Revolution

values: Category:American political philosophy literature

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Letters_from_a_Farmer_in_Pennsylvania rootpage-Letters_from_a_Farmer_in_Pennsylvania skin-vector action-view