財產權之倡議與私產制之確立是為反映、擴大或是用來引導和限制人的貪婪天性？如果設立政治社會與政府的目的是用來保障財產及財產權，是不是同時保障或限制人之貪婪天性，包括無窮之欲望與滿足欲望之行動？人為何天性貪婪？本文擬證成以下見解：《政府論兩篇》乃作者體察神不在人間之真實，期以聖經詮釋與「論政府」供世人自救於生活困局的論辯。神之創世與造人雖是計畫，亞當與夏娃之被逐卻屬意外。先祖違背上帝意旨，子孫萬難期望神再臨塵世。世人唯有設法，就在此世以財產權之聲稱及巨大強制力安置此生為安身立命所不可或缺，卻又容易引人無限貪欲的財產，由此推演出成立國家與政府的必要性與合理性，也展現洛克對政治與人生之關聯的見解。那就是人獨在人間，若欲挽救墮落之格局，唯有人以不違逆上帝之賜福及對人類自愛愛人之期許，接受獨在人間的事實，以同意與授權為手段，以有限立法為體制之樞紐，以保衛社會作為無可退讓的立足點，造起純粹出於人之理性與力量且無待神意或神力以行永固人間之效的政治秩序。

Whether the purpose of advocacy and the establishment of the institution of private property are to reflect, expand or guide and restrict human greed? If the ultimate purpose of political society and government are going to preserve private property and property right, are political society and government also going to protect or limit human greed, including endless human desires and their implementation? Why the human is greed innately? This article intends to justify the following arguments: John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” is a debate concerning how a legitmate government evolved from the human effort to deliver from human predicament which arose from the genuine truth-God created human and left them to conduct a mortal and laborous life alone without enlightening any ready-made ways to live peacefully together in the chaos of meaning, value, and authorty. The proper and easy way to acquire sufficient property in the new world became the first urgent issue for human to execute the God’s blessing, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.’ Both of a critical bibical interpreation for refuting Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha and a Lockean theory of limited governmental power that generated from the consent of the majority provided two influential solutons for the human conditions in the state of nature. Locke’s arguments in this materpiece embodied an impressive but uneasy situation for everyone in this mortal world that God created the world and all things, and the human was blessed to become the master to govern the earth for God, however, without appreciating the suitable approach to implement this donation. Therefore, political power and its necessary discourse concerning “what is the political” were the entirely secular relucant human inventions to shelter ourselves from the destined saling in “a boundless and bottomless sea.”