What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞
鬲乇噩賲丞 睾賷乇 賰丕賲賱丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀氐賱賷
丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 鬲丨賵賶 9 賮氐賵賱 賮賯胤 賲賳 18 賷丨賵賷賴丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀氐賱賷
亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 廿賯鬲亘丕爻 爻乇賷毓 賲賳 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱噩丕賳 噩丕賰 乇賵爻賵
丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 鬲丨賵賶 9 賮氐賵賱 賮賯胤 賲賳 18 賷丨賵賷賴丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀氐賱賷
亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 廿賯鬲亘丕爻 爻乇賷毓 賲賳 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱噩丕賳 噩丕賰 乇賵爻賵
152 pages
First published December 1, 1689
739 people are currently reading
19806 people want to read
About the author
John Locke
1,626听books1,384听followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 601 reviews
July 3, 2022
鈥庁堌池з嗁� 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丿賵 乇爻丕賱賴貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 丨讴賵賲鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 讴賴 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇賽 芦噩丕賳 賱丕讴賭禄 倬爻 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 "乇爻丕賱賴 丕蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 賮賴賲 丕賳爻丕賳" 賲蹖亘丕卮丿... 倬丕蹖賴贁 賮賱爻賮赖贁 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖賽 胤亘蹖毓鬲賽 賵噩賵丿蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 賵 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 卮賲丕 毓夭蹖夭丕賳 賲蹖丿丕賳蹖丿貙 賮賱爻賮赖贁 爻蹖丕爻蹖賽 噩丕賳 賱丕讴賭貙 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 丕夭 丨賯 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲卮丕賳 賲蹖亘丕卮丿貙 丌賳賴賲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲賽 禺氐賵氐蹖賽 鬲讴 鬲讴賽 丌賳賴丕
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 禺乇丿诏乇丕 賳亘賵丿 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 丕賵 賴賲趩賵賳 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘夭乇诏 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿貙 賲賵賴賵賲 倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿 賵 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 丿蹖賳蹖 爻乇趩卮賲賴 賲蹖诏乇賮鬲 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳蹖夭 賴乇趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 賲爻丕卅賱 賲丕賵乇丕卅蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇蹖睾 丕夭 匕乇賴 丕蹖 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 賵 丕乇夭卮 賯丕卅賱 卮丿賳 亘乇丕蹖 讴乇丕賲鬲賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖... 亘賴鬲乇 亘賵丿 鬲丕 丕诏乇 丕乇夭卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲 亘禺丕胤乇 禺賵丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 賳賴 丌賳讴賴 亘禺丕胤乇 賲匕賴亘 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳丕賲卮禺氐 丕夭 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賽 "禺丿丕" 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁ж� 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賱丕讴貙 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 禺丿丕賵賳丿 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丌賮乇蹖丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲噩亘賵乇 亘賵丿 鬲丕 亘乇 丕爻丕爻賽 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 胤亘蹖毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 賵 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 氐賱丨 亘乇賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿貙 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴乇丌賳趩賴 讴賴 丿賱卮 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿丕丿... 賱丕讴貙 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴: 丨賯賽 丕賳爻丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 氐蹖丕賳鬲賽 賳賮爻賽 禺賵蹖卮 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕卮蹖丕蹖賽 賲賵乇丿 賳蹖丕夭 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 卮丕丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕蹖賳賴丕 乇丕 禺丿丕 賲賯丿乇 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
鈥庁й屬� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲賽 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻丿: 丕賳爻丕賳 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 丕夭 毓賲賱卮 夭蹖丕賳蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘乇爻丿貙 丿爻鬲 亘賴 鬲氐乇賮賽 賲丕賱蹖 亘夭賳丿貙 趩賵賳 禺丿丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 禺賵卮亘禺鬲 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲賲賳丿 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賳亘丕蹖丿 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖賽 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 亘乇丌蹖丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丕夭 丌賳 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳賳丿.. 丕賲賾丕 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丕卮禺丕氐 亘丕 丕賴丿丕賮賽 睾蹖乇丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賳蹖夭 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖亘丕蹖爻鬲 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 倬卮鬲蹖亘丕賳蹖 丕夭 丨賯賵賯賽 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 乇丕 賵囟毓 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 倬卮鬲蹖亘丕賳蹖 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丿乇 丕氐賱 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲
鈥広嗁嗀з嗂嗁� 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕夭 乇賮丕賴賽 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 噩丕賲毓賴 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賳讴賳丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 亘丕 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 卮賵丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 賵馗蹖賮賴贁 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇賽 丨讴賵賲鬲 賴丕蹖 賳丕賱丕蹖賯 亘賴 讴賵丿鬲丕 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 賵 賯蹖丕賲 丿爻鬲 亘夭賳丿
鈥庁й屬� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 賲賳丕爻亘 賵 讴丕乇丌賲丿 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮賵丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賵 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 噩丕賲毓賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲丕丿蹖 賵 賲毓賳賵蹖 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴賳丿 讴乇丿 賵 丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 賲賲讴賳 賳蹖爻鬲.... 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丨讴賵賲鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 亘丕 賯丕賳賵賳 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 讴賴 禺丿丕賵賳丿 賲賯乇乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘乇賯乇丕乇 讴賳丿
鈥庁壁┵勜� 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 夭賲丕賳蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵 乇爻丕賱賴 乇丕 賳賵卮鬲 讴賴 鬲賳卮 賴丕 賵 丿乇诏蹖乇蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲蹖丕賳賽 賲噩賱爻 賵 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲
鈥庁з勜ㄘ� 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭 賵 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 賴乇 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 丕夭 丿爻鬲鬲丕賳 亘乇 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 丿爻鬲 亘夭賳蹖丿貙 賲孬賱丕賸 禺賵丿卮 丿乇 鬲乇賵乇賽 賳丕賮乇噩丕賲賽 倬丕丿卮丕賴 卮乇讴鬲 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丕夭 賳賮乇丕鬲賽 丕氐賱蹖 丿乇 讴賵丿鬲丕 丿乇 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕丿乇賽 卮丕賴 亘賴 賵蹖 乇丨賲 讴乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 丕賵 乇丕 丕夭 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 亘賴 賴賱賳丿 鬲亘毓蹖丿 賳賲賵丿 ... 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 賳亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 賴丿賮卮丕賳 丨丕囟乇賳丿 鬲丕 禺賵賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 乇蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵丿貙 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 賳賲賵丿 賵 亘乇丕蹖 爻禺賳丕賳卮丕賳 丕乇夭卮 賯丕卅賱 亘賵丿... 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 賲賵賴賵賲 倬乇爻鬲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 禺丿丕 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 賲蹖丿賴賳丿貙 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 禺丿丕蹖 賳丕賲乇卅蹖賽 禺賵蹖卮貙 丨丕囟乇 亘賴 賯鬲賱 賵 讴卮鬲丕乇 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 卮賵賳丿
鈥庂嗁堌辟� 趩卮賲丕賳賲貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丿賵乇蹖 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕蹖賳賴丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 亘賴卮鬲 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 賴乇讴丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕爻賲卮 乇丕 丕賳噩丕賲賽 賮乇丕賲蹖賳 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 丕賱賴蹖 賲蹖诏匕乇丕賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 亘蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕 賵 爻禺賳丕賳卮丕賳 丕賳丿讴蹖 賳蹖夭 丕夭 丌夭丕丿蹖 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻賳丿 鬲丕 賲禺丕胤亘 賵 賲乇丿賲 賳丕丌诏丕賴 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮賽 賲睾賱胤賴 賮乇蹖亘 丿賴賳丿... 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 賴賲 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賲爻蹖丨蹖 亘丕卮賳丿貙 蹖丕 賲爻賱賲丕賳 賵 蹖丕 蹖賴賵丿蹖... 賲賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇讴丿丕賲 亘賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲賽 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖賽 禺賵丿 鬲毓氐亘 賵 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕乇賳丿
--------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳賽 禺乇丿诏乇丕 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 丿賵爻鬲賽 爻乇夭賲蹖賳賲貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥幝聚屫辟堌� 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖禄
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 禺乇丿诏乇丕 賳亘賵丿 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 丕賵 賴賲趩賵賳 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘夭乇诏 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿貙 賲賵賴賵賲 倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿 賵 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 丿蹖賳蹖 爻乇趩卮賲賴 賲蹖诏乇賮鬲 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳蹖夭 賴乇趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 賲爻丕卅賱 賲丕賵乇丕卅蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇蹖睾 丕夭 匕乇賴 丕蹖 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 賵 丕乇夭卮 賯丕卅賱 卮丿賳 亘乇丕蹖 讴乇丕賲鬲賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖... 亘賴鬲乇 亘賵丿 鬲丕 丕诏乇 丕乇夭卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲 亘禺丕胤乇 禺賵丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 賳賴 丌賳讴賴 亘禺丕胤乇 賲匕賴亘 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳丕賲卮禺氐 丕夭 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賽 "禺丿丕" 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁ж� 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賱丕讴貙 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 禺丿丕賵賳丿 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丌賮乇蹖丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲噩亘賵乇 亘賵丿 鬲丕 亘乇 丕爻丕爻賽 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 胤亘蹖毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 賵 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 氐賱丨 亘乇賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿貙 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴乇丌賳趩賴 讴賴 丿賱卮 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿丕丿... 賱丕讴貙 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴: 丨賯賽 丕賳爻丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 氐蹖丕賳鬲賽 賳賮爻賽 禺賵蹖卮 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕卮蹖丕蹖賽 賲賵乇丿 賳蹖丕夭 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 卮丕丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕蹖賳賴丕 乇丕 禺丿丕 賲賯丿乇 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
鈥庁й屬� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲賽 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻丿: 丕賳爻丕賳 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 丕夭 毓賲賱卮 夭蹖丕賳蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘乇爻丿貙 丿爻鬲 亘賴 鬲氐乇賮賽 賲丕賱蹖 亘夭賳丿貙 趩賵賳 禺丿丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 禺賵卮亘禺鬲 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲賲賳丿 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賳亘丕蹖丿 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖賽 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 亘乇丌蹖丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丕夭 丌賳 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳賳丿.. 丕賲賾丕 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丕卮禺丕氐 亘丕 丕賴丿丕賮賽 睾蹖乇丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賳蹖夭 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖亘丕蹖爻鬲 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 倬卮鬲蹖亘丕賳蹖 丕夭 丨賯賵賯賽 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 乇丕 賵囟毓 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 倬卮鬲蹖亘丕賳蹖 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丿乇 丕氐賱 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲
鈥広嗁嗀з嗂嗁� 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕夭 乇賮丕賴賽 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 噩丕賲毓賴 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賳讴賳丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 亘丕 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 卮賵丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 賵馗蹖賮賴贁 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇賽 丨讴賵賲鬲 賴丕蹖 賳丕賱丕蹖賯 亘賴 讴賵丿鬲丕 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 賵 賯蹖丕賲 丿爻鬲 亘夭賳丿
鈥庁й屬� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 賲賳丕爻亘 賵 讴丕乇丌賲丿 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮賵丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賵 丕毓囟丕蹖賽 噩丕賲毓賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲丕丿蹖 賵 賲毓賳賵蹖 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴賳丿 讴乇丿 賵 丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 賲賲讴賳 賳蹖爻鬲.... 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丨讴賵賲鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 亘丕 賯丕賳賵賳 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 讴賴 禺丿丕賵賳丿 賲賯乇乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘乇賯乇丕乇 讴賳丿
鈥庁壁┵勜� 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 夭賲丕賳蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵 乇爻丕賱賴 乇丕 賳賵卮鬲 讴賴 鬲賳卮 賴丕 賵 丿乇诏蹖乇蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲蹖丕賳賽 賲噩賱爻 賵 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲
鈥庁з勜ㄘ� 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭 賵 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 噩丕賳 賱丕讴貙 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 賴乇 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 丕夭 丿爻鬲鬲丕賳 亘乇 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 丿爻鬲 亘夭賳蹖丿貙 賲孬賱丕賸 禺賵丿卮 丿乇 鬲乇賵乇賽 賳丕賮乇噩丕賲賽 倬丕丿卮丕賴 卮乇讴鬲 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丕夭 賳賮乇丕鬲賽 丕氐賱蹖 丿乇 讴賵丿鬲丕 丿乇 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕丿乇賽 卮丕賴 亘賴 賵蹖 乇丨賲 讴乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 丕賵 乇丕 丕夭 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳 亘賴 賴賱賳丿 鬲亘毓蹖丿 賳賲賵丿 ... 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 賳亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 賴丿賮卮丕賳 丨丕囟乇賳丿 鬲丕 禺賵賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 乇蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵丿貙 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 賳賲賵丿 賵 亘乇丕蹖 爻禺賳丕賳卮丕賳 丕乇夭卮 賯丕卅賱 亘賵丿... 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 賲賵賴賵賲 倬乇爻鬲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 禺丿丕 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 賲蹖丿賴賳丿貙 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 禺丿丕蹖 賳丕賲乇卅蹖賽 禺賵蹖卮貙 丨丕囟乇 亘賴 賯鬲賱 賵 讴卮鬲丕乇 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 卮賵賳丿
鈥庂嗁堌辟� 趩卮賲丕賳賲貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丿賵乇蹖 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕蹖賳賴丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 亘賴卮鬲 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 賴乇讴丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕爻賲卮 乇丕 丕賳噩丕賲賽 賮乇丕賲蹖賳 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳賽 丕賱賴蹖 賲蹖诏匕乇丕賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 亘蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕 賵 爻禺賳丕賳卮丕賳 丕賳丿讴蹖 賳蹖夭 丕夭 丌夭丕丿蹖 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻賳丿 鬲丕 賲禺丕胤亘 賵 賲乇丿賲 賳丕丌诏丕賴 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮賽 賲睾賱胤賴 賮乇蹖亘 丿賴賳丿... 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 賴賲 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賲爻蹖丨蹖 亘丕卮賳丿貙 蹖丕 賲爻賱賲丕賳 賵 蹖丕 蹖賴賵丿蹖... 賲賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇讴丿丕賲 亘賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲賽 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖賽 禺賵丿 鬲毓氐亘 賵 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕乇賳丿
--------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳賽 禺乇丿诏乇丕 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 丿賵爻鬲賽 爻乇夭賲蹖賳賲貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥幝聚屫辟堌� 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖禄
December 29, 2014
100 things I鈥檝e learned鈥� from Ayn Rand'sJohn Locke鈥檚 鈥淪econd Treatise of Government鈥�:
1. God gave the world to Adam, and his successive heirs.
2. Therefore, by the natural laws of succession (i.e. ), that means everything in the world should now be owned by one supreme King.
3. Hmmm. That doesn鈥檛 sound so good.
4. Hey! What鈥檚 that over there!?
5. As I was saying, everything in the world is owned in common by everyone.
6. But not like the stupid way the English do it with 鈥淐ommon land鈥�, where no-one can do anything without getting everyone鈥檚 permission first.
7. If that were the natural state of things, then father couldn鈥檛 just put lots of meat on the dinner table for the whole family to eat, he鈥檇 have to tell everyone what their portion was first, and that would be madness.
8. Rather, anyone should be allowed to just take anything they want. The very act of taking it makes it theirs.
9. This is clearly how God intended things, as he commanded man to work, and thus my labour in picking up an apple makes it mine.
10. Don鈥檛 be greedy though. You鈥檙e only allowed to take anything you can actually use before it spoils.
11. This applies to land too. You can simply take as much land as you like without asking anyone鈥檚 permission, but only if you鈥檙e actually able to properly tend to it.
12. Some people claim that this is reducing the Commons, but they鈥檝e obviously never learned how to count. Land that is well looked after produces ten times as much value as land that鈥檚 just lying idle. So if I take 10 acres and use it to feed myself, society hasn鈥檛 lost those 10 acres, it has gained 90 acres. Or maybe even 900!
13. If you have taken too much from the commons 鈥� say, too many plums 鈥� then one way to avoid having them spoil is to trade them with someone else. If someone gives you lots of, say, nuts that will last a year for your excess plums, then crisis avoided! If those plums spoil now, it鈥檚 his fault, not yours.
14. And now, better yet, get someone to give you sparkly metal for those nuts. That will never spoil!
15. Now that you have property that is rightfully yours, you鈥檙e allowed to use lethal force to defend it.
16. If someone has already managed to steal everything you own, then your recourse is to the law.
17. But if someone is actively trying to steal something 鈥� say, your coat 鈥� from you right now, then you don鈥檛 have time to go find a magistrate somewhere to stop him, so instead you鈥檙e entitled to just kill him.
18. Nature itself tells us this is obviously so. Just as you can鈥檛 reason with a wild animal, any person who resorts to force against you is no different to a beast of prey, and should be killed like one.
19. Oh, and when I talk about laws of nature, you know what I mean. I don鈥檛 want to go into detail of how that works, but anyway I don鈥檛 need to, as it鈥檚 all as obvious and plain as commonwealth law. Clearer, in fact.
20. Just like how when a husband and wife disagree, it鈥檚 obvious that someone needs to make the final decision, and naturally that will be the man.
21. So, yes, anyway, it鈥檚 the thief鈥檚 fault that I don鈥檛 have time to go find a judge, so I鈥檓 allowed to kill him if I can.
22. And when I say 鈥渒ill鈥�, I also mean that I can force him to be my slave instead. After all, he鈥檒l be happy to be a slave instead of being dead. And any time he decides that he doesn鈥檛 like it any more, he can just refuse to do what I say, thus bringing about the death he obviously wants instead.
23..99 And now that I鈥檝e derived from first principles that 鈥榮ociety鈥� is just a collective formulation of all these natural rights, it鈥檚 fairly obvious how government should work鈥�
100. Unfortunately I lost most of the first draft of this treatise, which was an excellent fisking of that ass . But, oh well, that鈥檚 probably OK, as surely no-one believes him any more anyway, and now you get to read this instead. And if this is as good as I think it is (and, trust me, it really is that good!), then the lost pages are no great loss at all.
鈥�
鈥� With the proviso that I鈥檝e only read it, not studied it.
PS: I strongly recommend 's 鈥樷€� into modern English. It makes it so much easier tosee the crazinessunderstand the text.
1. God gave the world to Adam, and his successive heirs.
2. Therefore, by the natural laws of succession (i.e. ), that means everything in the world should now be owned by one supreme King.
3. Hmmm. That doesn鈥檛 sound so good.
4. Hey! What鈥檚 that over there!?
5. As I was saying, everything in the world is owned in common by everyone.
6. But not like the stupid way the English do it with 鈥淐ommon land鈥�, where no-one can do anything without getting everyone鈥檚 permission first.
7. If that were the natural state of things, then father couldn鈥檛 just put lots of meat on the dinner table for the whole family to eat, he鈥檇 have to tell everyone what their portion was first, and that would be madness.
8. Rather, anyone should be allowed to just take anything they want. The very act of taking it makes it theirs.
9. This is clearly how God intended things, as he commanded man to work, and thus my labour in picking up an apple makes it mine.
10. Don鈥檛 be greedy though. You鈥檙e only allowed to take anything you can actually use before it spoils.
11. This applies to land too. You can simply take as much land as you like without asking anyone鈥檚 permission, but only if you鈥檙e actually able to properly tend to it.
12. Some people claim that this is reducing the Commons, but they鈥檝e obviously never learned how to count. Land that is well looked after produces ten times as much value as land that鈥檚 just lying idle. So if I take 10 acres and use it to feed myself, society hasn鈥檛 lost those 10 acres, it has gained 90 acres. Or maybe even 900!
13. If you have taken too much from the commons 鈥� say, too many plums 鈥� then one way to avoid having them spoil is to trade them with someone else. If someone gives you lots of, say, nuts that will last a year for your excess plums, then crisis avoided! If those plums spoil now, it鈥檚 his fault, not yours.
14. And now, better yet, get someone to give you sparkly metal for those nuts. That will never spoil!
15. Now that you have property that is rightfully yours, you鈥檙e allowed to use lethal force to defend it.
16. If someone has already managed to steal everything you own, then your recourse is to the law.
17. But if someone is actively trying to steal something 鈥� say, your coat 鈥� from you right now, then you don鈥檛 have time to go find a magistrate somewhere to stop him, so instead you鈥檙e entitled to just kill him.
18. Nature itself tells us this is obviously so. Just as you can鈥檛 reason with a wild animal, any person who resorts to force against you is no different to a beast of prey, and should be killed like one.
19. Oh, and when I talk about laws of nature, you know what I mean. I don鈥檛 want to go into detail of how that works, but anyway I don鈥檛 need to, as it鈥檚 all as obvious and plain as commonwealth law. Clearer, in fact.
20. Just like how when a husband and wife disagree, it鈥檚 obvious that someone needs to make the final decision, and naturally that will be the man.
21. So, yes, anyway, it鈥檚 the thief鈥檚 fault that I don鈥檛 have time to go find a judge, so I鈥檓 allowed to kill him if I can.
22. And when I say 鈥渒ill鈥�, I also mean that I can force him to be my slave instead. After all, he鈥檒l be happy to be a slave instead of being dead. And any time he decides that he doesn鈥檛 like it any more, he can just refuse to do what I say, thus bringing about the death he obviously wants instead.
23..99 And now that I鈥檝e derived from first principles that 鈥榮ociety鈥� is just a collective formulation of all these natural rights, it鈥檚 fairly obvious how government should work鈥�
100. Unfortunately I lost most of the first draft of this treatise, which was an excellent fisking of that ass . But, oh well, that鈥檚 probably OK, as surely no-one believes him any more anyway, and now you get to read this instead. And if this is as good as I think it is (and, trust me, it really is that good!), then the lost pages are no great loss at all.
鈥�
鈥� With the proviso that I鈥檝e only read it, not studied it.
PS: I strongly recommend 's 鈥樷€� into modern English. It makes it so much easier to
February 22, 2025
禺賵丕賳卮 鄄郯鄄鄣
賴乇趩賳丿 賳孬乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賴丕亘夭 賵 賱丕讴 賴乇 丿賵 趩賳丿丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭蹖鈥屬囏� 乇丕丨鬲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賮賱爻賮蹖貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賱丕讴 卮丕蹖丿 乇丕丨鬲鈥屫� 亘丕卮丿 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賴丕亘夭. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳 爻丕丿诏蹖 賳爻亘蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賱丕讴 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屰� 賮賱爻賮蹖鈥屫ж� 乇丕 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賲噩夭丕 诏賮鬲賴 (噩爻鬲丕乇蹖 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 賮丕賴賲賴鈥屰� 亘卮乇蹖)貨 丕賲丕 賴丕亘夭 丿乇 賮氐賱 丕賵賱 賱賵蹖丕鬲丕賳 亘賴 倬蹖卮鈥屬佖必垛€屬囏й� 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屭必й屫з嗁団€屰� 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�.
賱蹖賳讴 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丿讴鬲乇 賲爻毓賵丿 丕賳氐丕乇蹖 丕夭 賱丕讴 亘丕 禺賵丕賳卮 讴賱賵爻讴賵 乇丕 丕蹖賳鈥屫� 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐�. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 鬲丨卮蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇 賮氐賱 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 賱丕讴 乇丕 賳蹖夭 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 讴丕賳丕賱 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘蹖丕亘蹖丿:
趩賴丕乇 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 賲丨賲賵丿 氐賳丕毓蹖貙 卮賴乇丕賲 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿貙 丨賲蹖丿 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵貙 賵 賮乇卮丕丿 卮乇蹖毓鬲. 趩賳丿 爻丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖讴 讴丕賳丕賱 亘乇丕蹖 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 賳賯丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 丿乇爻鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賱蹖賳讴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 賳賯丿 噩賵丕丿 胤亘丕胤亘丕蹖蹖 亘乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 乇爻丕賱賴鈥屰� 丿賵賲 賱丕讴 (禺氐賵氐丕 毓賱蹖賴 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賮乇卮丕丿 卮乇蹖毓鬲) 乇丕 亘蹖丕亘蹖丿. 噩賵丕亘蹖賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 亘賴 胤亘丕胤亘丕蹖蹖 賵 丨賵丕卮蹖 丌賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 丿乇 倬爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿蹖 賴賲蹖賳 讴丕賳丕賱 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з�:
賵 丕賲丕 趩賳丿 賳賲賵賳賴 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з� 噩賴鬲 賲賯丕蹖爻賴鈥屰� 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賵 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 賵 氐賳丕毓蹖. 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賵蹖乇丕爻鬲賴鈥屰� 倬蹖鬲乇 賱爻賱鬲 丕爻鬲:
亘賳丿 鄱
yet he has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.
丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿:
賵賱蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丨賯 丕蹖賳 乇丕 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 蹖丕 丿蹖诏乇 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賲賱讴 丕賵爻鬲貙 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿.
毓囟丿丕賳賱賵:
丕賲丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 鬲亘丕賴 讴乇丿賳 禺賵丿 賵 蹖丕 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿乇 鬲氐乇賮 丕賵爻鬲 賳丿丕乇丿貨 賲诏乇 丌賳鈥屫� 讴賴 丕蹖噩丕亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丨賮馗 賵 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 氐乇賮 丕夭 丌賳 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴鈥屫й� 亘賴蹖賳賴 卮賵丿.
氐賳丕毓蹖:
亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丨賯 賳丿丕乇丿 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿 賵 蹖丕 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丕賵爻鬲 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿.
賳鬲蹖噩賴: 賮賯胤 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 亘禺卮 丌禺乇 丕蹖賳 噩賲賱賴 乇丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 丿賵 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴賱蹖 丨匕賮 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�.
讴賱賲賴鈥屰� 讴丕賲賳-賵賱孬 丿乇 丕蹖賳 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏� 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 蹖讴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賳蹖夭 丿乇 噩丕賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲毓丕丿賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 氐賳丕毓蹖 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 賵噩賵丿 賲鬲乇丕丿賮鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 丕蹖賳 賱睾鬲 賲孬賱 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 蹖丕 丿賵賱鬲 (亘賳丿 郾鄯 賵 郾郾鄣 賵 郾郾鄹) 亘賴 讴賱 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳 讴丕賲賳-賵賱孬 乇丕 丿乇 趩賳丿蹖賳 噩丕 丨匕賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 讴賴 賲毓丕丿賱 毓噩蹖亘 鬲賳賵丕乇賴鈥屰� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�. 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賳蹖夭 賴乇趩賳丿 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屫ж� 丕丿毓丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 賴賲爻賵丿 乇丕 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴貙 丕賲丕 诏丕賴蹖 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必з嗀� 蹖丕 乇爻賲 氐賳丕毓蹖 乇丕 倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
丿乇 讴賱 卮丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 賵 賵賮丕丿丕乇鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賲賮賴賵賲鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 丿卮賵丕乇蹖 讴丕乇 亘賴 賳孬乇 禺賵丿 賱丕讴 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必�. 丨丕賱丕 賲賳馗賵乇賲 丕夭 丿賯鬲 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 賵 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 亘賵丿賳 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 趩蹖爻鬲責 丕蹖賳 蹖讴 賲孬丕賱:
which shew that 鈥檛is not the change of Nations in the Persons of their Governours, but the change of Government, that gives the Offence.
丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿: 亘賴 賲丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 乇賮鬲丕乇 賲賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丨丕讴賲丕賳 禺賵蹖卮 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 鬲噩丕賵夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 乇賮鬲丕乇 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賲爻亘亘 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕爻鬲.
毓囟丿丕賳賱賵:
賳卮丕賳诏乇 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿乇 賲賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖丕賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵賴蹖賳 賵 亘蹖鈥屫ж必з呟� 亘賴 賲賱鬲 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�.
丿乇 丌禺乇 亘賳丿 鄣鄯貙 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 讴賲蹖 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 倬爻鬲 丿乇 讴丕賳丕賱賲 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з�:
亘賴 賳馗乇 亘賳丿賴貙 趩丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇 丿乇 賲胤丕賱毓賴鈥屰� 讴鬲亘 丕蹖賳 趩賳蹖賳蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮賯胤 亘賳丿賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘丕 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴丕乇 鬲丨賯蹖賯蹖 丿丕乇蹖賲 賵 蹖丕 丨爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 蹖讴 噩丕蹖 讴丕乇卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屬勝嗂� 乇丕 亘丕 丕賳賵丕毓 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏� 賵 亘丕 丕賳賵丕毓 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 趩讴 讴賳蹖賲 鬲丕 亘丕 禺卮鬲 丕賵賱 丿乇爻鬲 賵 丨爻丕亘蹖貙 丿蹖賵丕乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屰� 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賳丕 讴賳蹖賲貨 賵 丕夭 丌賳 胤乇賮 賴賲 丿蹖诏乇 趩賳丕賳 賵爻賵丕爻蹖 賳卮賵蹖賲 讴賴 毓胤丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賳丿賳 乇丕 亘賴 賱賯丕蹖卮 亘亘禺卮蹖賲.
***
禺賵丕賳卮 鄄郯鄄鄞:
Only read chapters 1-5 as the assigned reading for this course: Moral Foundations of Politics.
亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賲丨賲賵丿 氐賳丕毓蹖 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦丌夭丕丿蹖 賮乇丿 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丿賵賱鬲禄.
賴乇趩賳丿 賳孬乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賴丕亘夭 賵 賱丕讴 賴乇 丿賵 趩賳丿丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭蹖鈥屬囏� 乇丕丨鬲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賮賱爻賮蹖貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賱丕讴 卮丕蹖丿 乇丕丨鬲鈥屫� 亘丕卮丿 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賴丕亘夭. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳 爻丕丿诏蹖 賳爻亘蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賱丕讴 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屰� 賮賱爻賮蹖鈥屫ж� 乇丕 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賲噩夭丕 诏賮鬲賴 (噩爻鬲丕乇蹖 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 賮丕賴賲賴鈥屰� 亘卮乇蹖)貨 丕賲丕 賴丕亘夭 丿乇 賮氐賱 丕賵賱 賱賵蹖丕鬲丕賳 亘賴 倬蹖卮鈥屬佖必垛€屬囏й� 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屭必й屫з嗁団€屰� 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�.
賱蹖賳讴 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丿讴鬲乇 賲爻毓賵丿 丕賳氐丕乇蹖 丕夭 賱丕讴 亘丕 禺賵丕賳卮 讴賱賵爻讴賵 乇丕 丕蹖賳鈥屫� 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐�. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 鬲丨卮蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇 賮氐賱 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 賱丕讴 乇丕 賳蹖夭 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 讴丕賳丕賱 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘蹖丕亘蹖丿:
趩賴丕乇 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 賲丨賲賵丿 氐賳丕毓蹖貙 卮賴乇丕賲 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿貙 丨賲蹖丿 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵貙 賵 賮乇卮丕丿 卮乇蹖毓鬲. 趩賳丿 爻丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖讴 讴丕賳丕賱 亘乇丕蹖 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 賳賯丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 丿乇爻鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賱蹖賳讴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 賳賯丿 噩賵丕丿 胤亘丕胤亘丕蹖蹖 亘乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 乇爻丕賱賴鈥屰� 丿賵賲 賱丕讴 (禺氐賵氐丕 毓賱蹖賴 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賮乇卮丕丿 卮乇蹖毓鬲) 乇丕 亘蹖丕亘蹖丿. 噩賵丕亘蹖賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 亘賴 胤亘丕胤亘丕蹖蹖 賵 丨賵丕卮蹖 丌賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 丿乇 倬爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿蹖 賴賲蹖賳 讴丕賳丕賱 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з�:
賵 丕賲丕 趩賳丿 賳賲賵賳賴 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з� 噩賴鬲 賲賯丕蹖爻賴鈥屰� 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賵 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 賵 氐賳丕毓蹖. 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賵蹖乇丕爻鬲賴鈥屰� 倬蹖鬲乇 賱爻賱鬲 丕爻鬲:
亘賳丿 鄱
yet he has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.
丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿:
賵賱蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丨賯 丕蹖賳 乇丕 賳丿丕乇丿 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 蹖丕 丿蹖诏乇 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賲賱讴 丕賵爻鬲貙 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿.
毓囟丿丕賳賱賵:
丕賲丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 鬲亘丕賴 讴乇丿賳 禺賵丿 賵 蹖丕 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿乇 鬲氐乇賮 丕賵爻鬲 賳丿丕乇丿貨 賲诏乇 丌賳鈥屫� 讴賴 丕蹖噩丕亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丨賮馗 賵 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 氐乇賮 丕夭 丌賳 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴鈥屫й� 亘賴蹖賳賴 卮賵丿.
氐賳丕毓蹖:
亘丕 丕蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丨賯 賳丿丕乇丿 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿 賵 蹖丕 丌賮乇蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丕賵爻鬲 鬲亘丕賴 讴賳丿.
賳鬲蹖噩賴: 賮賯胤 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 亘禺卮 丌禺乇 丕蹖賳 噩賲賱賴 乇丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 丿賵 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴賱蹖 丨匕賮 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�.
讴賱賲賴鈥屰� 讴丕賲賳-賵賱孬 丿乇 丕蹖賳 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏� 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 蹖讴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賳蹖夭 丿乇 噩丕賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲毓丕丿賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 氐賳丕毓蹖 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 賵噩賵丿 賲鬲乇丕丿賮鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 丕蹖賳 賱睾鬲 賲孬賱 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 蹖丕 丿賵賱鬲 (亘賳丿 郾鄯 賵 郾郾鄣 賵 郾郾鄹) 亘賴 讴賱 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳 讴丕賲賳-賵賱孬 乇丕 丿乇 趩賳丿蹖賳 噩丕 丨匕賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 讴賴 賲毓丕丿賱 毓噩蹖亘 鬲賳賵丕乇賴鈥屰� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�. 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賳蹖夭 賴乇趩賳丿 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屫ж� 丕丿毓丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 賴賲爻賵丿 乇丕 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴貙 丕賲丕 诏丕賴蹖 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必з嗀� 蹖丕 乇爻賲 氐賳丕毓蹖 乇丕 倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
丿乇 讴賱 卮丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 賵 賵賮丕丿丕乇鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 賲賮賴賵賲鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 丿卮賵丕乇蹖 讴丕乇 亘賴 賳孬乇 禺賵丿 賱丕讴 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必�. 丨丕賱丕 賲賳馗賵乇賲 丕夭 丿賯鬲 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 賵 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 亘賵丿賳 丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿 趩蹖爻鬲責 丕蹖賳 蹖讴 賲孬丕賱:
which shew that 鈥檛is not the change of Nations in the Persons of their Governours, but the change of Government, that gives the Offence.
丕乇卮丿賳跇丕丿: 亘賴 賲丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 乇賮鬲丕乇 賲賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丨丕讴賲丕賳 禺賵蹖卮 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 鬲噩丕賵夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 乇賮鬲丕乇 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賲爻亘亘 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕爻鬲.
毓囟丿丕賳賱賵:
賳卮丕賳诏乇 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿乇 賲賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖丕賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵賴蹖賳 賵 亘蹖鈥屫ж必з呟� 亘賴 賲賱鬲 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�.
丿乇 丌禺乇 亘賳丿 鄣鄯貙 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓囟丿丕賳賱賵 讴賲蹖 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 丕爻鬲. 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 倬爻鬲 丿乇 讴丕賳丕賱賲 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з�:
亘賴 賳馗乇 亘賳丿賴貙 趩丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇 丿乇 賲胤丕賱毓賴鈥屰� 讴鬲亘 丕蹖賳 趩賳蹖賳蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮賯胤 亘賳丿賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘丕 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴丕乇 鬲丨賯蹖賯蹖 丿丕乇蹖賲 賵 蹖丕 丨爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 蹖讴 噩丕蹖 讴丕乇卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屬勝嗂� 乇丕 亘丕 丕賳賵丕毓 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏� 賵 亘丕 丕賳賵丕毓 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 趩讴 讴賳蹖賲 鬲丕 亘丕 禺卮鬲 丕賵賱 丿乇爻鬲 賵 丨爻丕亘蹖貙 丿蹖賵丕乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屰� 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賳丕 讴賳蹖賲貨 賵 丕夭 丌賳 胤乇賮 賴賲 丿蹖诏乇 趩賳丕賳 賵爻賵丕爻蹖 賳卮賵蹖賲 讴賴 毓胤丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賳丿賳 乇丕 亘賴 賱賯丕蹖卮 亘亘禺卮蹖賲.
***
禺賵丕賳卮 鄄郯鄄鄞:
Only read chapters 1-5 as the assigned reading for this course: Moral Foundations of Politics.
亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賲丨賲賵丿 氐賳丕毓蹖 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦丌夭丕丿蹖 賮乇丿 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丿賵賱鬲禄.
March 27, 2017
"3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of [private] property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good."
So I finally have read political philosophy that makes sense. This is the philosopher that and swore by and who is essential to understanding modern democratic governance. With this treatise, which was a polemic against absolute monarchy, you see the project started by Aristotle in his finally reach its conclusion--for the most part.
This book is not a relatively long read when you consider its subject matter so I will not have to go into a extended summary on it. Basically, humanity starts out in a very free, very equal state of nature were everything is shard with every one and the law of nature which is reason rules all. If you cause conflict you go into a state of war and all just measures can be used to subdue you. It is constant in nature, and after it, that preservation of yourself (first) and others is key which means slavery is not allowed of yourself or anybody else.
When you start to acquire private property though, the state of nature is not a very good place to be any more and this is where [hu]man start[s] to make a civil society and all the laws that come with it. Civil society, while nice, is not perfect and it is when your government starts messing with your ability to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of property then you have a right to revolution.
This treatise, of course, is really known for its establishment of what we now call liberal government. It is the main reason I feel this to be the best work of political philosophy I have read. Locke says that in the end it does not matter what form of government you have. The reason is that two principles have to be in place: a.) the government relies on the consent of the people or citizenry and b.) that the government acts in a limited role, doing only what is necessary for the well-being of civil society. This last point is easily the most confusing because what any society considers necessary is not set in stone.
This is just a very short, abridged and inadequate summary of some of the knowledge in this book. The reason I don't go into more detail is because it is much better that you read this book yourself than hear it second hand. This goes especially if you live under a government that is theoretically limited in its role and based on the consent of the governed because you are basically living in John Locke's commonwealth. If you had to read one book on political philosophy, this is the book.
So I finally have read political philosophy that makes sense. This is the philosopher that and swore by and who is essential to understanding modern democratic governance. With this treatise, which was a polemic against absolute monarchy, you see the project started by Aristotle in his finally reach its conclusion--for the most part.
This book is not a relatively long read when you consider its subject matter so I will not have to go into a extended summary on it. Basically, humanity starts out in a very free, very equal state of nature were everything is shard with every one and the law of nature which is reason rules all. If you cause conflict you go into a state of war and all just measures can be used to subdue you. It is constant in nature, and after it, that preservation of yourself (first) and others is key which means slavery is not allowed of yourself or anybody else.
When you start to acquire private property though, the state of nature is not a very good place to be any more and this is where [hu]man start[s] to make a civil society and all the laws that come with it. Civil society, while nice, is not perfect and it is when your government starts messing with your ability to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of property then you have a right to revolution.
This treatise, of course, is really known for its establishment of what we now call liberal government. It is the main reason I feel this to be the best work of political philosophy I have read. Locke says that in the end it does not matter what form of government you have. The reason is that two principles have to be in place: a.) the government relies on the consent of the people or citizenry and b.) that the government acts in a limited role, doing only what is necessary for the well-being of civil society. This last point is easily the most confusing because what any society considers necessary is not set in stone.
This is just a very short, abridged and inadequate summary of some of the knowledge in this book. The reason I don't go into more detail is because it is much better that you read this book yourself than hear it second hand. This goes especially if you live under a government that is theoretically limited in its role and based on the consent of the governed because you are basically living in John Locke's commonwealth. If you had to read one book on political philosophy, this is the book.
August 3, 2024
2024 Review
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s.
The first time I read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, I was 20 years old. I was so enthralled by it I stayed up till 2 am to finish.
Then I re-read it in 2020 while TAing a political theory class. And I once again found that Locke madesense.
Third time around and I must admit, my intellectual reading muscles have gotten flabby. It took me far longer than it should have to make it through this book. I still enjoyed it but it took more effort to track his arguments. I conclude that this book is most effective when read in context, or at least with a professor to explain it.
2020 Review
Always a favorite.
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s.
The first time I read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, I was 20 years old. I was so enthralled by it I stayed up till 2 am to finish.
Then I re-read it in 2020 while TAing a political theory class. And I once again found that Locke madesense.
Third time around and I must admit, my intellectual reading muscles have gotten flabby. It took me far longer than it should have to make it through this book. I still enjoyed it but it took more effort to track his arguments. I conclude that this book is most effective when read in context, or at least with a professor to explain it.
2020 Review
Always a favorite.
March 19, 2016
This book was assigned reading for the "Social and Political Philosophy" class at Loyola University Chicago. It's a rewarding, yet easy, read.
John Locke's Second Treatise has long been mentioned as a major factor in forming the mindsets of the authors of the Constitution of the USA. There is certainly, as Wittgenstein would put it, "a family resemblance", but a study of the library contents of the period indicates that actually it may not have been much read at the time. It certainly wasn't his most popular book. In any case, when the framers spoke and wrote, their references were much more often to the idealized days of the Roman Republic than to the theories of Locke or any other roughly contemporary political philosopher. Still, the kind of thinking enunciated by Locke was apparently in the air and his arguments regarding governmental legitimacy are powerful--at least to those of us indoctrinated since childhood with such ideals as that governments require legitimization beyond brute force or tradition.
The basic idea is this: governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed--in other words, they are contractual arrangements. Any notion that this is historically descriptive is certainly dubious, but the idea is certainly relevant to the founding of this republic years after his death. It was also, during that period, apparently both realistic and practical, the existence of the American frontier allowing adults the possibility of opting out such contracts.
Of course, Locke has his blindspots. He does deal with the issue of children, endorsing the idea that young men upon attainment of their majority ought be able to become outlaws. Tho young boys remain coerced, they have the prospect of freedom. He does not, however, at least to my recollection, give thought to girls and women. Nor does he think of those adult members of the community who are, owing to physical or mental disability, unable to fend for themselves. Most egregiously, however, he neglects the native inhabitants of the American and of all other habitable frontiers of his and of our later revolutionary age.
Still, it is a powerful idea and an attractive one. So powerful and constituative is it of the secular American religion that the loss of the frontier, of any realistic way to opt out of the American system, out of any governmental system, constitutes a radical challenge to the very foundations of the claim that the United States of America is in any way specially sanctioned.
I should very much like to live in a society in which this, the matter of governmental legitimacy, was an issue of actual concern, rather than of pious mythologization. Any government worthy of our respect must needs include among its functions the maintenance of real means to escape its authority. Indeed, making allowance for race and gender blindness, our government, and that of our Britannic parent, used to act with some mind to just that when the mythic frontiers of America and of Australia seemed quite real. Oh, it was half-assed and self-serving, but frontiers were seen as social safety valves and these, and other, governments did make some efforts to make it possible for citizens to get away from noxious authority by such means as the Northwest Territories and Homestead Acts. Nowadays, however, while rugged individualism and frontier virtues are still invoked by the political priesthoods, the actual fact is quite the contrary. Our government grows ever more intrusive, ever more oppressive, ever more inescapable and ever more disrespected while it should, at least, be striving to engage with the other powers and principalities in order to create the conditions for all of them to obtain and maintain legitimacy. This can be done.
Science fiction writers has dealt with this issue for decades, solving the problem of legitimacy in various ways. On one extreme there is the vast body of literature about pioneers in space, usually just hi-tech versions of sixteenth through eighteenth century colonists, pioneers, adventurers, pirates and the like. These pictures are, of course, unrealistic, given the technologies involved and the capitalization that they would entail. On the other extreme, and more realistically, there have been some who have envisioned futures when vast areas of our planet have been depopulated in order to allow for outlawry. As I recall, Huxley makes a wilderness Australia the alternative to his dystopian brave new world and a private retreat the haven for psychedelic pilgrims in his Island. Neither work out, but they could. Here, in the Midwest, we have created a national park in the Indiana Dunes by exemplary intention.
Unless nature forces the issue by radical depopulation, such an effort will not yield immediate results. If the nations unitedly decided to create a frontier of, say, Australia (assuming it would be big enough and clement enough to be a real alternative to those not liking the existing social contracts available elsewhere and willing to bear the hardships of independent outlawry), it would have to occur over time given the interests of its current inhabitants. Otherwise, one might consider global efforts to reduce the human population and perhaps concentrate the remainder so as to allow ever-increasing frontier areas everywhere, frontiers offering freedoms ranging from weekend excursions to lifelong escape. Or, and this I just have a glimmer of, perhaps future developments in computer technology, the world-wide web and self-induced altered states of consciousness will allow our descendents other dimensions of freedom barely imaginable to us now, but real enough to them as to serve as alternatives to unwanted authority.
In any case, John Locke, way back in the transitional years of the 17-18th centuries, got me started worrying about this stuff. Quite an accomplishment!
John Locke's Second Treatise has long been mentioned as a major factor in forming the mindsets of the authors of the Constitution of the USA. There is certainly, as Wittgenstein would put it, "a family resemblance", but a study of the library contents of the period indicates that actually it may not have been much read at the time. It certainly wasn't his most popular book. In any case, when the framers spoke and wrote, their references were much more often to the idealized days of the Roman Republic than to the theories of Locke or any other roughly contemporary political philosopher. Still, the kind of thinking enunciated by Locke was apparently in the air and his arguments regarding governmental legitimacy are powerful--at least to those of us indoctrinated since childhood with such ideals as that governments require legitimization beyond brute force or tradition.
The basic idea is this: governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed--in other words, they are contractual arrangements. Any notion that this is historically descriptive is certainly dubious, but the idea is certainly relevant to the founding of this republic years after his death. It was also, during that period, apparently both realistic and practical, the existence of the American frontier allowing adults the possibility of opting out such contracts.
Of course, Locke has his blindspots. He does deal with the issue of children, endorsing the idea that young men upon attainment of their majority ought be able to become outlaws. Tho young boys remain coerced, they have the prospect of freedom. He does not, however, at least to my recollection, give thought to girls and women. Nor does he think of those adult members of the community who are, owing to physical or mental disability, unable to fend for themselves. Most egregiously, however, he neglects the native inhabitants of the American and of all other habitable frontiers of his and of our later revolutionary age.
Still, it is a powerful idea and an attractive one. So powerful and constituative is it of the secular American religion that the loss of the frontier, of any realistic way to opt out of the American system, out of any governmental system, constitutes a radical challenge to the very foundations of the claim that the United States of America is in any way specially sanctioned.
I should very much like to live in a society in which this, the matter of governmental legitimacy, was an issue of actual concern, rather than of pious mythologization. Any government worthy of our respect must needs include among its functions the maintenance of real means to escape its authority. Indeed, making allowance for race and gender blindness, our government, and that of our Britannic parent, used to act with some mind to just that when the mythic frontiers of America and of Australia seemed quite real. Oh, it was half-assed and self-serving, but frontiers were seen as social safety valves and these, and other, governments did make some efforts to make it possible for citizens to get away from noxious authority by such means as the Northwest Territories and Homestead Acts. Nowadays, however, while rugged individualism and frontier virtues are still invoked by the political priesthoods, the actual fact is quite the contrary. Our government grows ever more intrusive, ever more oppressive, ever more inescapable and ever more disrespected while it should, at least, be striving to engage with the other powers and principalities in order to create the conditions for all of them to obtain and maintain legitimacy. This can be done.
Science fiction writers has dealt with this issue for decades, solving the problem of legitimacy in various ways. On one extreme there is the vast body of literature about pioneers in space, usually just hi-tech versions of sixteenth through eighteenth century colonists, pioneers, adventurers, pirates and the like. These pictures are, of course, unrealistic, given the technologies involved and the capitalization that they would entail. On the other extreme, and more realistically, there have been some who have envisioned futures when vast areas of our planet have been depopulated in order to allow for outlawry. As I recall, Huxley makes a wilderness Australia the alternative to his dystopian brave new world and a private retreat the haven for psychedelic pilgrims in his Island. Neither work out, but they could. Here, in the Midwest, we have created a national park in the Indiana Dunes by exemplary intention.
Unless nature forces the issue by radical depopulation, such an effort will not yield immediate results. If the nations unitedly decided to create a frontier of, say, Australia (assuming it would be big enough and clement enough to be a real alternative to those not liking the existing social contracts available elsewhere and willing to bear the hardships of independent outlawry), it would have to occur over time given the interests of its current inhabitants. Otherwise, one might consider global efforts to reduce the human population and perhaps concentrate the remainder so as to allow ever-increasing frontier areas everywhere, frontiers offering freedoms ranging from weekend excursions to lifelong escape. Or, and this I just have a glimmer of, perhaps future developments in computer technology, the world-wide web and self-induced altered states of consciousness will allow our descendents other dimensions of freedom barely imaginable to us now, but real enough to them as to serve as alternatives to unwanted authority.
In any case, John Locke, way back in the transitional years of the 17-18th centuries, got me started worrying about this stuff. Quite an accomplishment!
July 19, 2014
It feels sort of like Hobbes for optimists, except he places a much higher emphasis on personal vs. collective property rights, which comes across as the precursor to most of the capitalist-oriented d-bag philopshy that's sprouted up in the past century. The notion that not being able to personally own something makes it useless and trifiling to us gets its foundation here. I could see Karl Marx frothing at the mouth and writing some bitter diatribe after reading something like this.
I was also surprised at just how much of this is grounded on cherry-picked scriptural references, probably explains why it's almost obnixously upbeat. If nothing else his writing style is waaaaay easier to get through than Hobbes's Leviathan.
I was also surprised at just how much of this is grounded on cherry-picked scriptural references, probably explains why it's almost obnixously upbeat. If nothing else his writing style is waaaaay easier to get through than Hobbes's Leviathan.
February 26, 2017
Even if all of the concepts in this book are bullshit it is still an important read because powerful people thought it was important.
I enjoy the idea that property is a product of labour, but it really doesn't hold up in most circumstances, and especially not in our world of scarce resources (I can't just pick a plum and claim it mine).
I like the idea of a 'state of war' in which all the rights and duties fly out the window. But, when do I know if I'm in a state of war. And, furthermore, if by breaking my 'rights' the opposition enters into a state of war with me, what substance do those rights have?
And then so much of what is right and wrong is defined by those in power, so unless there's a serious and obvious breach, I have no 'right' to declare that those Powers have entered into a state of war.
Locke created an ultra-rational basis of government and authority that doesn't work in our unkempt world. But it is still a basis of some sort, and it was apparently influential on the constitution of that one country who's international influences distorts everyone's reality.
This sort of work is powerful because it gives people the 'rational' justification to do what they want to do. It's something that everyone should read. And, really, I did enjoy the read, and I won't judge a book by its influence for good or bad (as any important book could be construed in which ever way you want to interpret its influence).
note: I was extremely confused by his stance on slavery. At one point it seems like a slave is his/her master's property, but in another point Locke seems to say that an individuals liberty (liberty being a type of property) can never be sacrificed. I don't understand how I can justifiably become a slave, and if I can't then no slave is justifiably property (which would be congruent with modern notions of human rights).
I enjoy the idea that property is a product of labour, but it really doesn't hold up in most circumstances, and especially not in our world of scarce resources (I can't just pick a plum and claim it mine).
I like the idea of a 'state of war' in which all the rights and duties fly out the window. But, when do I know if I'm in a state of war. And, furthermore, if by breaking my 'rights' the opposition enters into a state of war with me, what substance do those rights have?
And then so much of what is right and wrong is defined by those in power, so unless there's a serious and obvious breach, I have no 'right' to declare that those Powers have entered into a state of war.
Locke created an ultra-rational basis of government and authority that doesn't work in our unkempt world. But it is still a basis of some sort, and it was apparently influential on the constitution of that one country who's international influences distorts everyone's reality.
This sort of work is powerful because it gives people the 'rational' justification to do what they want to do. It's something that everyone should read. And, really, I did enjoy the read, and I won't judge a book by its influence for good or bad (as any important book could be construed in which ever way you want to interpret its influence).
note: I was extremely confused by his stance on slavery. At one point it seems like a slave is his/her master's property, but in another point Locke seems to say that an individuals liberty (liberty being a type of property) can never be sacrificed. I don't understand how I can justifiably become a slave, and if I can't then no slave is justifiably property (which would be congruent with modern notions of human rights).
March 22, 2014
I think that the best description for this book is that it formed much of the Founding Fathers' source code behind their political thought, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Now, we largely take it for granted that all men are created equal and are endowed with natural rights. In 1690, in a time when the Divine Right of Kings was still very much in acceptance, Locke's contention that all men are have the same natural rights was a revolutionary notion which he developed in justification of England's Glorious Revolution which overthrew King James II.
Because of Locke's major influence on Thomas Jefferson, I read this book. Surprisingly, Locke forms many of his beginning basis of his arguments on natural rights from the Bible --- something that I was not told about in either high school or college in their mentions of his political philosophy. Probably not a good book for a weak reader, but definitely worth the effort for anyone seeking to learn the background from which America's greatest patriots drew their principles during and after the American Revolution.
Because of Locke's major influence on Thomas Jefferson, I read this book. Surprisingly, Locke forms many of his beginning basis of his arguments on natural rights from the Bible --- something that I was not told about in either high school or college in their mentions of his political philosophy. Probably not a good book for a weak reader, but definitely worth the effort for anyone seeking to learn the background from which America's greatest patriots drew their principles during and after the American Revolution.
August 26, 2018
This is Locke鈥檚 most famous political work, in which he explains the role of legitimate government and the basis for legitimate revolution.
Locke argues that the people have the right to dissolve the government if it is usurped by a tyrannical executive power, or if the government ignored its own duties. Then the people have the right to reform the structure of government so that it protects against future abuses of power or breaches of trust. Locke wants to show that his argument for a right to revolution will not lead to excessive unrest, so he emphasizes that as long as people have a reliable way to change their laws, they are unlikely to resort to force to overthrow the government.
There鈥檚 also a chapter on the rights of parents over their children (Chapter 6: Of Parental Power), in which Locke argued criticized the prevalent idea that "the power of parents over their children [is] wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title."
Locke鈥檚 discussion of slavery allows for one way that he says slavery can be legitimate: The state of slavery can result from a continued state of war between the winning side in a just war and the defeated aggressors, in which the winner has the right to enslave the captives in return for sparing their lives. There鈥檚 a clear contradiction between this theory and slavery as it actually existed, since Atlantic slavery was hereditary.
I reread this book in the Well-Educated Mind Histories Group. I haven鈥檛 looked at any secondary sources except the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Locke - the section on the Two Treatises of Government can be found here:
Locke argues that the people have the right to dissolve the government if it is usurped by a tyrannical executive power, or if the government ignored its own duties. Then the people have the right to reform the structure of government so that it protects against future abuses of power or breaches of trust. Locke wants to show that his argument for a right to revolution will not lead to excessive unrest, so he emphasizes that as long as people have a reliable way to change their laws, they are unlikely to resort to force to overthrow the government.
There鈥檚 also a chapter on the rights of parents over their children (Chapter 6: Of Parental Power), in which Locke argued criticized the prevalent idea that "the power of parents over their children [is] wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title."
Locke鈥檚 discussion of slavery allows for one way that he says slavery can be legitimate: The state of slavery can result from a continued state of war between the winning side in a just war and the defeated aggressors, in which the winner has the right to enslave the captives in return for sparing their lives. There鈥檚 a clear contradiction between this theory and slavery as it actually existed, since Atlantic slavery was hereditary.
I reread this book in the Well-Educated Mind Histories Group. I haven鈥檛 looked at any secondary sources except the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Locke - the section on the Two Treatises of Government can be found here:
April 1, 2025
man鈥檚 got me locked in (to the commonwealth)
September 21, 2019
Quy峄僴 s谩ch th铆ch h峄 cho m峄峣 sinh vi锚n b岷痶 膽岷 c谩c ng脿nh h峄峜 v峄� khoa h峄峜 ch铆nh tr峄� (political science), qu岷 tr峄� nh脿 n瓢峄沜 (state governance), lu岷璽 ph谩p (law), c农ng nh瓢 sau n脿y h峄� tr峄� th脿nh c谩c lu岷璽 gia, lu岷璽 s瓢 (lawyer, attorney, counsellor), ch铆nh tr峄� gia, nh脿 ho岷 膽峄檔g nh脿 n瓢峄沜 (politicians, statesmen). Ngo岷 tr峄� ph岷 膽峄� c岷璸 膽岷縩 Kinh Th谩nh v峄憂 l脿 n峄乶 t岷g c峄 tri th峄ヽ cho 膽岷縩 th峄漣 膽i峄僲 m脿 t谩c ph岷﹎ 膽瓢峄 vi岷縯 ra v脿 xu岷 b岷, ng瓢峄漣 膽峄峜 ng脿y nay, nh岷 l脿 m峄檛 x茫 h峄檌 phi Thi锚n ch煤a gi谩o nh瓢 Vi峄噒 Nam, th矛 膽i峄乽 n脿y c贸 th峄� l瓢峄泃 qua, trong ch峄玭g m峄眂 coi n贸 nh瓢 m峄檛 ti锚n 膽峄� trong To谩n h峄峜 (d霉 v岷瓂, vi峄噉 d岷玭 膽岷縩 Kinh Th谩nh 膽峄� bi峄噉 h峄� cho Lu岷璽 t峄� nhi锚n l脿 h岷縯 s峄ヽ x谩c 膽谩ng), th矛 nh峄痭g lu岷璶 膽i峄僲 trong Kh岷 lu岷璶 n脿y 膽峄� c岷 h岷縯 s峄ヽ 膽岷 膽峄�, ch岷穞 ch岷� v峄� M峄孖 v岷 膽峄� li锚n quan 膽岷縩 ch铆nh quy峄乶 v脿 quan h峄� c峄 ch铆nh quy峄乶 v峄沬 ng瓢峄漣 d芒n. 膼岷穋 bi峄噒 nh峄痭g ch瓢啤ng cu峄慽 trong kh岷 lu岷璶 膽峄� c岷璸 膽岷縩 ph岷 vi hi峄噓 l峄眂 c峄 ch铆nh quy峄乶 hay tr谩ch nhi峄噈, s峄� ph岷 kh谩ng c峄 ng瓢峄漣 d芒n 膽峄慽 v峄沬 ch铆nh quy峄乶 trong c谩c tr瓢峄漬g h峄 chinh ph岷, ti岷縨 quy峄乶 hay ch岷� 膽峄� chuy锚n ch岷� l脿 nh峄痭g l岷璸 lu岷璶 v峄痭g ch岷痗 kh么ng th峄� b谩c b峄�.
Cho 5 sao n岷縰 t么i 膽峄峜 峄� l峄゛ tu峄昳 sinh vi锚n nh瓢 膽茫 n贸i 峄� tr锚n, khi vi峄嘽 h峄峜 膽i li峄乶 v峄沬 h脿nh trong c岷� cu峄檆 膽峄漣 v峄� sau. Cho 3 sao khi s谩ch n脿y kh么ng c貌n gi谩 tr峄� h脿nh 膽峄慽 v峄沬 t么i n峄痑, m脿 ch峄� 膽峄� b峄� sung th锚m, l岷 th锚m lu岷璶 c峄� cho c谩c hi峄僽 bi岷縯 膽茫 th脿nh h矛nh c峄 t么i.
S谩ch 膽茫 膽峄峜 xong, b岷 n脿o 峄� tu峄昳 sinh vi锚n v脿 d峄� 膽峄媙h t矛m hi峄僽 v峄� c谩c c啤 ch岷� c峄 ch铆nh quy峄乶 c贸 th峄� nh岷痭 tin 膽峄� t么i nh瓢峄g l岷.
Cho 5 sao n岷縰 t么i 膽峄峜 峄� l峄゛ tu峄昳 sinh vi锚n nh瓢 膽茫 n贸i 峄� tr锚n, khi vi峄嘽 h峄峜 膽i li峄乶 v峄沬 h脿nh trong c岷� cu峄檆 膽峄漣 v峄� sau. Cho 3 sao khi s谩ch n脿y kh么ng c貌n gi谩 tr峄� h脿nh 膽峄慽 v峄沬 t么i n峄痑, m脿 ch峄� 膽峄� b峄� sung th锚m, l岷 th锚m lu岷璶 c峄� cho c谩c hi峄僽 bi岷縯 膽茫 th脿nh h矛nh c峄 t么i.
S谩ch 膽茫 膽峄峜 xong, b岷 n脿o 峄� tu峄昳 sinh vi锚n v脿 d峄� 膽峄媙h t矛m hi峄僽 v峄� c谩c c啤 ch岷� c峄 ch铆nh quy峄乶 c贸 th峄� nh岷痭 tin 膽峄� t么i nh瓢峄g l岷.
May 16, 2013
丕賱丿賵賱丞 廿賳賲丕 賳卮兀鬲 賱丨賲丕賷丞 丨賯賵賯 胤亘賷毓賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賯丕卅賲丞 賵鬲賳丕夭賱 丕賱賮乇丿 毓賳 噩夭亍 賲賳 丨賯賵賯賴 廿賳賲丕 賱賷囟賲賳 賱賳賮爻賴 賲丕 鬲亘賯賶 賲賳 丨賯賵賯 賵丨乇賷丕鬲 兀爻丕爻賷丞 貙貙 賵賱賷爻 賮賷 賵爻毓 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 賲賳丨 丕賱丨丕賰賲 爻賱胤丞 睾賷乇 賲丨丿賵丿丞 賱兀賳賴賲 賱丕 賷賲賱賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱丕賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 爻賱胤丞 丕賱丨丕賰賲 賲胤賱賯丞 廿匕 賴賷 賲丨丿賵丿丞 亘胤亘賷毓鬲賴丕 賵廿匕丕 丨丕賵賱 丕賱廿爻鬲夭丕丿丞 賲賳 爻賱胤鬲賴 兀賵 兀爻丕亍 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕 賰丕賳 賲賳 丨賯 丕賱卮毓亘 兀賳 賷禺賱毓賴 貙 賱匕賱賰 賰丕賳 賴丿賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱丿賮丕毓 毓賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丿爻鬲賵乇賷 賮賴賳丕賰 賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞 貙貙 丕賱丨乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱丨賯賵賯 兀爻丕爻 賮賷 賰賱 賴匕丕 貙貙 丕賱噩賲賷毓 丨賰賵賲丞 賵亘乇賱賲丕賳 賲爻卅賵賱賵賳 兀賲丕賲 丕賱卮毓亘
September 3, 2012
Whether or not Hegel was right that history is inevitably moving in a positive direction, he was most assuredly right that History is moving a direction that can limelight past social contradictions. When we look at Locke we see Hegel鈥檚 claim completely vindicated. His Second Treatise is both revolutionary for its time, and conservative for ours. Moreover, Locke, while challenging mainstream Political Theory of his day (e.g., Men are beasts in a state of war, and Kings have divine rights, and Monarchies are good forms of government), simultaneously leads along a path that would have us owning people, abusing animals, and ignoring the concerns of the commons. How does Locke do this? Knowing the answer to this question is paramount, as Locke more than anyone influenced the American founding fathers, and sons of liberty, in their propaganda and political ideals.
Locke begins his Second Treatise with some interesting claims. Man is born into a state of nature, where all he obeys are the laws of nature. These laws of nature are in fact reason, granted to us by a deity who owns us. Reason, without any deep argumentation, convinces us all that we have a right to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe we are born into a state of war; it鈥檚 only when someone transgresses against the laws of nature, which we find ourselves in a state of war. Being too irrational to defend ourselves, or at least defend ourselves utilizing a proper punishment and retribution, we desire a common and neutral judge. That judge is the state.
In order to defend the notion of protecting property via the state, Locke has to demonstrate how we come to own property. At first the earth is teaming with sustenance, and provisions. As man begins to labor over the earth, so that which he labors over becomes his. After all man owns his laboring appendages, and therefore, he mixes his ownership with the earth鈥檚 goods, and comes to own them too (but doesn鈥檛 God own man, and thus his appendages鈥�). Since we are in a state of nature though, where preservation of life is paramount, we cannot take more than we need, or as Locke calls it, let things spoil or go to waste. Then, without the slightest justification, Locke states that therefore the work of our servant belongs to us. How the hell does someone labor over a man for him to become our servant? This is never justified, but given Locke鈥檚 private affairs, and personal life, it鈥檚 no doubt he鈥檇 have to sneak this line in to his political treatise. Locke for instance sat on the board of many companies that employed children, and enslaved foreigners. He thought children should be put to work at the age of three. But I digress鈥�. Man also somehow can labor over an animal and thus own it too. Odd. Locke is confident that the earth will reap us a greater harvest, the more we work it, therefore, despite the fact the commons, in the state of nature, provides us with plenty, we can have even more plenty by labor. To a degree this is true, but it鈥檚 increasingly becoming clear that our industrial labors are having the opposite effect on the planet, destroying what once was plentiful.
Now that we have a super abundance, Locke needs to justify why we can step away from his old rule of the taking of no excess, and hoarding to the point of spoilage. For this Locke augments his shoddy labor theory of value. Man comes to agree that money, be it gold, or paper, which cannot spoil, than represent that which we trade it for. Now instead of hoarding my home with 100 apples, 90 of which will rot, I鈥檒l keep 100 apples worth of gold on reserve. Of course Locke never actually explained how money came to share an equivalent value with the goods it is exchanged for. Mere agreement does not allow for universal equivalent of value. For this, we must consult Marx. Moreover, it鈥檚 completely unclear that people did unanimously come together and 鈥榗onsent鈥� to using a common currency. Again, consult Marx.
Oddly this prospering and industrious society has all taken place prior to the erecting of a state. The Marxist truism that bourgeois thinkers read their own society back into history, and implore their own categories of thought 鈥� which derive from material circumstances 鈥� as timeless tools for analysis, is vindicated when one reads Locke. Man now requires a state to protect his property. No longer does man owe himself to the common lot, but uses the state to augment his own affairs, relying on the state to protect the commons, but the only protection the commons needs is preservation of property, and defense against transgressions. We went from a land of plenty, with our fellow man in mind, to find ourselves in a land of property, where the plenty is sectioned off, people are owned 鈥� without justification 鈥� and our only duty to our fellow man is to leave him alone. If he cannot make his way in society, it鈥檚 clearly his own fault. Funny how we all have a right to property, but only extreme minorities actually has it.
Thus Locke is both a revolutionary and a conservative. An enlightener, and a charlatan. A man of liberty and a man who sanctions owning humans. Despite his contradictory nature, he earns a small round of applause for those in favor of democracy. Locke is convinced that legislation can only be consented to when it passed by a majority, and not by a king. A king is literally in the state of war at all times, a man who sets the law, but completely operates outside it.
In regards to the essay on liberation, it鈥檚 a perfect example of what Zizek refers to as Liberalism鈥檚 inability to tolerate what it deems extremism. That is, liberals pretend to be for an open society, of tolerance, and religious expression, until you encroach on what they deem to be intolerant, and radical. Locke thinks all religions ought to be tolerated, except Catholics and atheists. The Catholics are beholden to the pope and thus cannot be loyal to the society they live in. And atheists can lie. That鈥檚 right, the reason you cannot trust atheists, is that they can lie. Stupid. One wonders how Locke didn鈥檛 instantly realize everyone can lie!
Read Locke, and if you cannot generate a critique, you鈥檙e long lost to liberal ideology. If you can generate a critique, socialism embraces you.
Locke begins his Second Treatise with some interesting claims. Man is born into a state of nature, where all he obeys are the laws of nature. These laws of nature are in fact reason, granted to us by a deity who owns us. Reason, without any deep argumentation, convinces us all that we have a right to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe we are born into a state of war; it鈥檚 only when someone transgresses against the laws of nature, which we find ourselves in a state of war. Being too irrational to defend ourselves, or at least defend ourselves utilizing a proper punishment and retribution, we desire a common and neutral judge. That judge is the state.
In order to defend the notion of protecting property via the state, Locke has to demonstrate how we come to own property. At first the earth is teaming with sustenance, and provisions. As man begins to labor over the earth, so that which he labors over becomes his. After all man owns his laboring appendages, and therefore, he mixes his ownership with the earth鈥檚 goods, and comes to own them too (but doesn鈥檛 God own man, and thus his appendages鈥�). Since we are in a state of nature though, where preservation of life is paramount, we cannot take more than we need, or as Locke calls it, let things spoil or go to waste. Then, without the slightest justification, Locke states that therefore the work of our servant belongs to us. How the hell does someone labor over a man for him to become our servant? This is never justified, but given Locke鈥檚 private affairs, and personal life, it鈥檚 no doubt he鈥檇 have to sneak this line in to his political treatise. Locke for instance sat on the board of many companies that employed children, and enslaved foreigners. He thought children should be put to work at the age of three. But I digress鈥�. Man also somehow can labor over an animal and thus own it too. Odd. Locke is confident that the earth will reap us a greater harvest, the more we work it, therefore, despite the fact the commons, in the state of nature, provides us with plenty, we can have even more plenty by labor. To a degree this is true, but it鈥檚 increasingly becoming clear that our industrial labors are having the opposite effect on the planet, destroying what once was plentiful.
Now that we have a super abundance, Locke needs to justify why we can step away from his old rule of the taking of no excess, and hoarding to the point of spoilage. For this Locke augments his shoddy labor theory of value. Man comes to agree that money, be it gold, or paper, which cannot spoil, than represent that which we trade it for. Now instead of hoarding my home with 100 apples, 90 of which will rot, I鈥檒l keep 100 apples worth of gold on reserve. Of course Locke never actually explained how money came to share an equivalent value with the goods it is exchanged for. Mere agreement does not allow for universal equivalent of value. For this, we must consult Marx. Moreover, it鈥檚 completely unclear that people did unanimously come together and 鈥榗onsent鈥� to using a common currency. Again, consult Marx.
Oddly this prospering and industrious society has all taken place prior to the erecting of a state. The Marxist truism that bourgeois thinkers read their own society back into history, and implore their own categories of thought 鈥� which derive from material circumstances 鈥� as timeless tools for analysis, is vindicated when one reads Locke. Man now requires a state to protect his property. No longer does man owe himself to the common lot, but uses the state to augment his own affairs, relying on the state to protect the commons, but the only protection the commons needs is preservation of property, and defense against transgressions. We went from a land of plenty, with our fellow man in mind, to find ourselves in a land of property, where the plenty is sectioned off, people are owned 鈥� without justification 鈥� and our only duty to our fellow man is to leave him alone. If he cannot make his way in society, it鈥檚 clearly his own fault. Funny how we all have a right to property, but only extreme minorities actually has it.
Thus Locke is both a revolutionary and a conservative. An enlightener, and a charlatan. A man of liberty and a man who sanctions owning humans. Despite his contradictory nature, he earns a small round of applause for those in favor of democracy. Locke is convinced that legislation can only be consented to when it passed by a majority, and not by a king. A king is literally in the state of war at all times, a man who sets the law, but completely operates outside it.
In regards to the essay on liberation, it鈥檚 a perfect example of what Zizek refers to as Liberalism鈥檚 inability to tolerate what it deems extremism. That is, liberals pretend to be for an open society, of tolerance, and religious expression, until you encroach on what they deem to be intolerant, and radical. Locke thinks all religions ought to be tolerated, except Catholics and atheists. The Catholics are beholden to the pope and thus cannot be loyal to the society they live in. And atheists can lie. That鈥檚 right, the reason you cannot trust atheists, is that they can lie. Stupid. One wonders how Locke didn鈥檛 instantly realize everyone can lie!
Read Locke, and if you cannot generate a critique, you鈥檙e long lost to liberal ideology. If you can generate a critique, socialism embraces you.
July 30, 2019
Kendim i莽in belirledi臒im yeniden okunmas谋 gerekenler listesinin bir di臒er kitab谋 da Y枚netim 脺zerine 陌kinci 陌nceleme idi. Zaman谋nda Birinci 陌nceleme'yi okumadan okumu艧tum b眉y眉k k谋sm谋n谋, bu sefer 枚nce Birinci 陌nceleme'yi okudum. 陌kinci 陌nceleme'yi okumay谋 d眉艧眉nenlere 枚ncelikle Birinci'sini okumalar谋n谋 tavsiye ederim. Okurken ne demek istedi臒imi anlayacaks谋n谋z, baz谋 艧eyler kesinlikle 莽ok daha net olacak kafan谋zda.
Locke, Tabii Hukuk okulunun 枚nemli yazarlar谋ndan biri. Hobbes'la benzer y枚nleri olmakla birlikte iktidara y眉kledikleri anlam bak谋m谋ndan farkl谋l谋klar g枚sterdi臒ini s枚ylemek m眉mk眉n. Locke da Hobbes gibi insanlar谋n ilk ba艧ta sava艧 durumunda ya艧ad谋臒谋na, toplum s枚zle艧mesiyle birtak谋m yetkilerini devrederek bar谋艧 durumuna ge莽meye 莽al谋艧t谋臒谋na inan谋yor. Locke da insanlar谋n e艧it olarak do臒du臒unu d眉艧眉n眉yor, insanlar ona g枚re e艧it ve 枚zg眉r; fakat 枚zg眉rl眉k tan谋m谋 Hobbes'unkinden biraz farkl谋. Hobbes, ki艧ilere s谋n谋rs谋z bir 枚zg眉rl眉k y眉klerken Locke'un 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉 ki艧inin her istedi臒ini yapabilmesi de臒il. Locke'a g枚re, bir ki艧i sadece di臒erlerinin ya艧am alan谋na, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉ne, sahip olduklar谋na zarar vermeden 枚zg眉rl眉klerden faydalanabilir. E臒er bir kimse, di臒erinin 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉n眉 zedeleyecek olursa, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉 zedelenen kimse, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉n眉 zedeleyen kimseyi yarg谋lama hakk谋na sahiptir; fakat, elbette, ki艧iler kendileri ya da yak谋nlar谋 s枚z konusu oldu臒unda objektiflikten uzak kararlar verebilirler. Bu sebeple de bu yarg谋lamay谋 tarafs谋z bir 艧ekilde yapacak bir g眉ce ihtiya莽 vard谋r.
Bunun yan谋 s谋ra, Locke da Hobbes gibi d眉nyadaki her 艧eyde hakk谋m谋z oldu臒unu d眉艧眉nmekte; ancak ki艧i e臒er "艧ey" 眉zerinde emek sarf ederek onu ba艧ka bir "艧ey" haline getirmi艧se, ortaya 莽谋kan yeni "艧ey" onun m眉lkiyeti alt谋nda olacakt谋r. Yani bo艧 bir toprak par莽as谋 眉zerinde A'n谋n da B'nin de hakk谋 vard谋r; ancak A, o toprak par莽as谋n谋 ekip dikmeye ba艧larsa o, A'n谋n m眉lkiyeti alt谋na girmi艧 olur. Locke, d眉nyada herkese yetecek toprak par莽as谋 oldu臒unu s枚ylemekte ve ki艧inin sadece kendisine yetecek olan谋 sahiplenmesi gerekti臒ini belirtmekte. Peki bunun s谋n谋r谋 ne? Locke'a g枚re s谋n谋r, e臒er ekti臒i topraktaki 眉r眉n眉 topra臒谋n谋n geni艧li臒inden dolay谋 toplayam谋yorsa, ektikleri 莽眉r眉yorsa o ki艧i gere臒inden fazlas谋na sahip demektir ve fazla k谋s谋m onun m眉lkiyetinde say谋lamaz. Yani ki艧inin ortak mala eme臒ini katmas谋 sonucu ortaya 莽谋kard谋臒谋 yeni mal onun m眉lkiyeti alt谋nda kabul edilmelidir; ancak ona eme臒ini katan herkes bundan kendi pay谋na d眉艧eni almal谋d谋r. Burada Locke, ekmek yap谋m谋 枚rne臒ini veriyor. Ekme臒in yap谋m谋nda tarlas谋nda bu臒day yeti艧tirenden tutun bu臒day谋 toplamaya yarayan aletleri yapana, f谋r谋nc谋ya kadar bir莽ok ki艧inin onda pay谋 oldu臒unu da belirtiyor.
陌艧te iktidar谋n amac谋n谋n ki艧ilerin m眉lkiyetine kar艧谋 zarar gelmesini 枚nleyecek yasalar 莽谋karmak oldu臒unu savunuyor Locke. E臒er bir ki艧i di臒erinin m眉lkiyetine zarar verecek olursa zarar vereni yarg谋layan谋n bir ba艧ka g眉莽 olmas谋 gerekti臒ini belirtiyor. Ayr谋ca iktidar谋n sadece ve sadece kamu yarar谋na hizmet edebilece臒ini, yasalar谋n kamu d眉zenini ve kamu yarar谋n谋 hedeflemesi gerekti臒ini, iktidar谋n kendi ki艧isel 莽谋karlar谋na hizmet etmeye ba艧lad谋臒谋 an yeniden sava艧 durumuna d枚n眉ld眉臒眉n眉 anlat谋yor. Kral谋n da yasaman谋n da koyulan yasalara uygun davranmakla y眉k眉ml眉 oldu臒unun da s谋k s谋k alt谋n谋 莽iziyor. Ayr谋ca yap谋lan yasalar谋 y眉r眉ten bir g眉莽 olmas谋 gerekti臒ini de belirterek asl谋nda "kuvvetler ayr谋l谋臒谋"ndan da bahsetti臒ini s枚ylemek m眉mk眉n.
Locke'un Hobbes'a oranla biraz daha anla艧谋labilir oldu臒unu d眉艧眉n眉yorum. Hobbes'un daha edebi buldu臒um bir dili var; ancak Locke okumay谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorsan谋z baz谋 艧eylerin daha rahat anla艧谋lmas谋 i莽in 枚ncelikle Leviathan'谋 okuman谋z谋 枚neririm. T眉m bunlara ek olarak "zulme kar艧谋 direnme hakk谋" konusunda da 莽al谋艧ma yapmak isteyenlerin mutlaka Y枚netim 脺zerine 陌kinci 陌nceleme'yi okumalar谋n谋 tavsiye ediyorum.
Locke, Tabii Hukuk okulunun 枚nemli yazarlar谋ndan biri. Hobbes'la benzer y枚nleri olmakla birlikte iktidara y眉kledikleri anlam bak谋m谋ndan farkl谋l谋klar g枚sterdi臒ini s枚ylemek m眉mk眉n. Locke da Hobbes gibi insanlar谋n ilk ba艧ta sava艧 durumunda ya艧ad谋臒谋na, toplum s枚zle艧mesiyle birtak谋m yetkilerini devrederek bar谋艧 durumuna ge莽meye 莽al谋艧t谋臒谋na inan谋yor. Locke da insanlar谋n e艧it olarak do臒du臒unu d眉艧眉n眉yor, insanlar ona g枚re e艧it ve 枚zg眉r; fakat 枚zg眉rl眉k tan谋m谋 Hobbes'unkinden biraz farkl谋. Hobbes, ki艧ilere s谋n谋rs谋z bir 枚zg眉rl眉k y眉klerken Locke'un 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉 ki艧inin her istedi臒ini yapabilmesi de臒il. Locke'a g枚re, bir ki艧i sadece di臒erlerinin ya艧am alan谋na, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉ne, sahip olduklar谋na zarar vermeden 枚zg眉rl眉klerden faydalanabilir. E臒er bir kimse, di臒erinin 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉n眉 zedeleyecek olursa, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉 zedelenen kimse, 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉n眉 zedeleyen kimseyi yarg谋lama hakk谋na sahiptir; fakat, elbette, ki艧iler kendileri ya da yak谋nlar谋 s枚z konusu oldu臒unda objektiflikten uzak kararlar verebilirler. Bu sebeple de bu yarg谋lamay谋 tarafs谋z bir 艧ekilde yapacak bir g眉ce ihtiya莽 vard谋r.
Bunun yan谋 s谋ra, Locke da Hobbes gibi d眉nyadaki her 艧eyde hakk谋m谋z oldu臒unu d眉艧眉nmekte; ancak ki艧i e臒er "艧ey" 眉zerinde emek sarf ederek onu ba艧ka bir "艧ey" haline getirmi艧se, ortaya 莽谋kan yeni "艧ey" onun m眉lkiyeti alt谋nda olacakt谋r. Yani bo艧 bir toprak par莽as谋 眉zerinde A'n谋n da B'nin de hakk谋 vard谋r; ancak A, o toprak par莽as谋n谋 ekip dikmeye ba艧larsa o, A'n谋n m眉lkiyeti alt谋na girmi艧 olur. Locke, d眉nyada herkese yetecek toprak par莽as谋 oldu臒unu s枚ylemekte ve ki艧inin sadece kendisine yetecek olan谋 sahiplenmesi gerekti臒ini belirtmekte. Peki bunun s谋n谋r谋 ne? Locke'a g枚re s谋n谋r, e臒er ekti臒i topraktaki 眉r眉n眉 topra臒谋n谋n geni艧li臒inden dolay谋 toplayam谋yorsa, ektikleri 莽眉r眉yorsa o ki艧i gere臒inden fazlas谋na sahip demektir ve fazla k谋s谋m onun m眉lkiyetinde say谋lamaz. Yani ki艧inin ortak mala eme臒ini katmas谋 sonucu ortaya 莽谋kard谋臒谋 yeni mal onun m眉lkiyeti alt谋nda kabul edilmelidir; ancak ona eme臒ini katan herkes bundan kendi pay谋na d眉艧eni almal谋d谋r. Burada Locke, ekmek yap谋m谋 枚rne臒ini veriyor. Ekme臒in yap谋m谋nda tarlas谋nda bu臒day yeti艧tirenden tutun bu臒day谋 toplamaya yarayan aletleri yapana, f谋r谋nc谋ya kadar bir莽ok ki艧inin onda pay谋 oldu臒unu da belirtiyor.
陌艧te iktidar谋n amac谋n谋n ki艧ilerin m眉lkiyetine kar艧谋 zarar gelmesini 枚nleyecek yasalar 莽谋karmak oldu臒unu savunuyor Locke. E臒er bir ki艧i di臒erinin m眉lkiyetine zarar verecek olursa zarar vereni yarg谋layan谋n bir ba艧ka g眉莽 olmas谋 gerekti臒ini belirtiyor. Ayr谋ca iktidar谋n sadece ve sadece kamu yarar谋na hizmet edebilece臒ini, yasalar谋n kamu d眉zenini ve kamu yarar谋n谋 hedeflemesi gerekti臒ini, iktidar谋n kendi ki艧isel 莽谋karlar谋na hizmet etmeye ba艧lad谋臒谋 an yeniden sava艧 durumuna d枚n眉ld眉臒眉n眉 anlat谋yor. Kral谋n da yasaman谋n da koyulan yasalara uygun davranmakla y眉k眉ml眉 oldu臒unun da s谋k s谋k alt谋n谋 莽iziyor. Ayr谋ca yap谋lan yasalar谋 y眉r眉ten bir g眉莽 olmas谋 gerekti臒ini de belirterek asl谋nda "kuvvetler ayr谋l谋臒谋"ndan da bahsetti臒ini s枚ylemek m眉mk眉n.
Locke'un Hobbes'a oranla biraz daha anla艧谋labilir oldu臒unu d眉艧眉n眉yorum. Hobbes'un daha edebi buldu臒um bir dili var; ancak Locke okumay谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorsan谋z baz谋 艧eylerin daha rahat anla艧谋lmas谋 i莽in 枚ncelikle Leviathan'谋 okuman谋z谋 枚neririm. T眉m bunlara ek olarak "zulme kar艧谋 direnme hakk谋" konusunda da 莽al谋艧ma yapmak isteyenlerin mutlaka Y枚netim 脺zerine 陌kinci 陌nceleme'yi okumalar谋n谋 tavsiye ediyorum.
February 27, 2020
This is one that I鈥檒l definitely have to come back to. When you come away from a classic with an entirely different opinion about it than much of Western civilization and many people whose opinions you greatly respect, the problem鈥檚 probably with you and not everyone else. That said, I think his entire philosophy is built on unbiblical and unchristian foundations. The Bible is clear that man鈥檚 state of nature is political. Taking the Garden of Eden by itself, it鈥檚 not all that clear; but Christ, as the second Adam and the Son of Man, is ruling as king, and there is clearly hierarchy in heaven (Matt 20:21-23, Rev 4:4 to name a few references) which means a biblical state of nature is political. Therefore, Locke鈥檚 whole project of getting us from a state of nature to political society is rejecting Scriptural truth. He also tries to build political authority from the bottom up, saying that the authority of a ruler comes from the individual. This contradicts Christ鈥檚 claim that all authority has been given to him (meaning that the individual has no authority to give to a ruler), and Paul鈥檚 claim that political authority comes from God. I think that a Christian who accepts Locke鈥檚 social contract theory is trying to answer the question of how we know who has political authority, but ends up with a wrong answer to a very different question about the nature and origin of authority. His philosophy is deist at best, and I don鈥檛 believe it can be reconciled with biblical truth.
Read
August 25, 2024un liberal amb el vaig estar dos anys em va posar els cuernos i ara m'entra suor freda cada vegada que he de llegir qualsevol cosa d'aquest corrent
May 11, 2025
Locke鈥檚 Second Treatise is fascinating and honestly equal parts brilliant, frustrating, and accidentally sinister.
First off, the First Treatise is such an absolute own on divine right it鈥檚 almost funny. The whole 鈥淕od gave Adam authority, so kings inherit it鈥� thing? Locke just shreds it. He basically says: even if Adam had some divine power, which he pretty much calls bullshit, there鈥檚 no way to trace it to any modern king. No receipts, no family tree, jack shit. It鈥檚 a total philosophical knockout. Any Christian monarch clinging to divine rule is basically standing on some theological fantasy.
Then there鈥檚 Locke鈥檚 theory of property, which starts off pretty cool. The idea that if you mix your labor with unused land or resources, it becomes your property. Pretty elegant, makes a lot of sense. And he even throws in a moral check: don鈥檛 take more than you can use, because taking too much is wasteful and wrong. But then he lets money into the system and suddenly it鈥檚 like, 鈥淲ell, coin doesn鈥檛 spoil, so go fucking nuts hoarding unlimited wealth.鈥� That shift, where spoilage stops being a limit because money doesn鈥檛 rot, is Locke basically giving capitalism the green light before capitalism even had a name. What starts as a morality of modest ownership turns into an open pass for accumulating obscene amounts of value, just as long as it's in coin. It鈥檚 like he says, 鈥淒on鈥檛 take too much, you piece of shit,鈥� and then five pages later, 鈥淯nless it鈥檚 gold, then go nuts.鈥�
And this is where Plato, across millennia, would鈥檝e walked in and said, 鈥淚 fucking told you.鈥� In the Republic (around 491c-495a, for instance), he lays out precisely how supposed 鈥済oods鈥� like wealth, social status, and even good looks can corrupt the soul and pull people away from real philosophy. He warns that these things don鈥檛 just mess up average folks; they bring down the best ones, those with the potential for true wisdom. And when these bright minds fall, they don鈥檛 become harmless. They become dangerous: clever, persuasive, socially respected. Locke鈥檚 money clause gave them a philosophy that said, 鈥淵ou worked for it, so it鈥檚 yours,鈥� and then conveniently stopped asking what 鈥渋t鈥� really was or how the hell you actually got it.
Then there鈥檚 tacit consent, which just doesn鈥檛 hold up. Locke says that by living in a country, using the roads, owning property, you鈥檙e agreeing to be governed. That鈥檚 your consent, he says. But seriously, what鈥檚 the alternative? Emigrate to the woods? Starve abroad? For most people, there鈥檚 no real way to opt out, especially in a pre-modern world. So what he鈥檚 calling 鈥渃onsent鈥� feels more like being born into a system with no exits and being told you agreed to it because you鈥檙e still breathing.
And here鈥檚 the really dark part, illustrating Plato's warning perfectly: in a twisted way, you can totally see how a racist Southern slave owner or British investor could read this book and come away feeling justified. First, just pretend Africans committed some crime or were captured in a 鈥渏ust war.鈥� Check. Second, say they鈥檙e not fully rational or civilized, so they鈥檙e not really people under natural law. Check. Third, argue that by preaching Christ to them or 鈥渃ivilizing鈥� them, you鈥檙e mixing your labor with them, so they become your property. Check. It鈥檚 a disgusting perversion of the ideas, but Locke鈥檚 system, particularly once corrupted by the pursuit of unlimited wealth, gave enough loose ends that it could be twisted into that logic. And worse, the motherfucker didn鈥檛 strongly oppose it and actually profited from it through the Royal African Company.
So overall, the Second Treatise is this weird mix: it鈥檚 revolutionary when it comes to kings and consent and liberal ideas of rights. But it's also flawed as hell, exploitable, and morally slippery when it comes to slavery, inequality, and colonialism. It鈥檚 the kind of book that can inspire revolutions and justify empires, depending on who鈥檚 holding it.
First off, the First Treatise is such an absolute own on divine right it鈥檚 almost funny. The whole 鈥淕od gave Adam authority, so kings inherit it鈥� thing? Locke just shreds it. He basically says: even if Adam had some divine power, which he pretty much calls bullshit, there鈥檚 no way to trace it to any modern king. No receipts, no family tree, jack shit. It鈥檚 a total philosophical knockout. Any Christian monarch clinging to divine rule is basically standing on some theological fantasy.
Then there鈥檚 Locke鈥檚 theory of property, which starts off pretty cool. The idea that if you mix your labor with unused land or resources, it becomes your property. Pretty elegant, makes a lot of sense. And he even throws in a moral check: don鈥檛 take more than you can use, because taking too much is wasteful and wrong. But then he lets money into the system and suddenly it鈥檚 like, 鈥淲ell, coin doesn鈥檛 spoil, so go fucking nuts hoarding unlimited wealth.鈥� That shift, where spoilage stops being a limit because money doesn鈥檛 rot, is Locke basically giving capitalism the green light before capitalism even had a name. What starts as a morality of modest ownership turns into an open pass for accumulating obscene amounts of value, just as long as it's in coin. It鈥檚 like he says, 鈥淒on鈥檛 take too much, you piece of shit,鈥� and then five pages later, 鈥淯nless it鈥檚 gold, then go nuts.鈥�
And this is where Plato, across millennia, would鈥檝e walked in and said, 鈥淚 fucking told you.鈥� In the Republic (around 491c-495a, for instance), he lays out precisely how supposed 鈥済oods鈥� like wealth, social status, and even good looks can corrupt the soul and pull people away from real philosophy. He warns that these things don鈥檛 just mess up average folks; they bring down the best ones, those with the potential for true wisdom. And when these bright minds fall, they don鈥檛 become harmless. They become dangerous: clever, persuasive, socially respected. Locke鈥檚 money clause gave them a philosophy that said, 鈥淵ou worked for it, so it鈥檚 yours,鈥� and then conveniently stopped asking what 鈥渋t鈥� really was or how the hell you actually got it.
Then there鈥檚 tacit consent, which just doesn鈥檛 hold up. Locke says that by living in a country, using the roads, owning property, you鈥檙e agreeing to be governed. That鈥檚 your consent, he says. But seriously, what鈥檚 the alternative? Emigrate to the woods? Starve abroad? For most people, there鈥檚 no real way to opt out, especially in a pre-modern world. So what he鈥檚 calling 鈥渃onsent鈥� feels more like being born into a system with no exits and being told you agreed to it because you鈥檙e still breathing.
And here鈥檚 the really dark part, illustrating Plato's warning perfectly: in a twisted way, you can totally see how a racist Southern slave owner or British investor could read this book and come away feeling justified. First, just pretend Africans committed some crime or were captured in a 鈥渏ust war.鈥� Check. Second, say they鈥檙e not fully rational or civilized, so they鈥檙e not really people under natural law. Check. Third, argue that by preaching Christ to them or 鈥渃ivilizing鈥� them, you鈥檙e mixing your labor with them, so they become your property. Check. It鈥檚 a disgusting perversion of the ideas, but Locke鈥檚 system, particularly once corrupted by the pursuit of unlimited wealth, gave enough loose ends that it could be twisted into that logic. And worse, the motherfucker didn鈥檛 strongly oppose it and actually profited from it through the Royal African Company.
So overall, the Second Treatise is this weird mix: it鈥檚 revolutionary when it comes to kings and consent and liberal ideas of rights. But it's also flawed as hell, exploitable, and morally slippery when it comes to slavery, inequality, and colonialism. It鈥檚 the kind of book that can inspire revolutions and justify empires, depending on who鈥檚 holding it.
August 21, 2020
Easier than I thought... I mean I always thought classical philosophy texts are hard to grasp but this one actually wasn鈥檛. Many parts of it have lost validity over centuries; there is a part where he mentions 鈥渢here aren鈥檛 many examples of people abolishing their political bonds to create a new body politic鈥� and I am pretty sure when Jefferson was reading those lines he was like 鈥渂itch, sit back and watch!鈥� However, there are key notions to it which are still valid: political consent, state of nature, liberty, body politics, giving up on rights in favor of preservation of property. Locke defines these concepts masterfully and for me, it would have been futile to read Jefferson and Madison without having read Locke. There are lots of biblical examples and also a lot of facts from Native Americans and remote lands which is obviously pure nonesense because Locke in his days had no sort of grasp of those societies and his references to those kind of communities are definitely groundless. When speaking about appropriation of land and the reference that he makes to America as being how the rest of the world originally developed and how basically the portion of a land where a man works on becomes their belonging shows how clueless he is about the situation in America ignoring the fact that the land there was actually inhabited; reminiscent of Frederick Jackson Turner three centuries later but well, with a totally different twist. Overall, I am glad I鈥檝e read it!
April 6, 2023
I think my favorite thing about this is how subtly subversive it is. Clever Locke says one thing, then immediately contradicts it several chapters later, but in a sneaky way so that his anti-Hobbesian readers wouldn鈥檛 notice.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 kill yourself, but if you鈥檙e unhappy with your life you can commit suicide.鈥�
鈥淲e are all creations of the Creator and everything is his. Except property. That is ours and ours alone and no one better take that from us.鈥�
(Clearly not direct quotes, but Maggie summaries 馃槈)
I found Locke to be much more complicated than I realized, especially when combined with his other writings (Letter on Toleration, exhibit A) and he can鈥檛 be categorized as either a good or bad influence.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 kill yourself, but if you鈥檙e unhappy with your life you can commit suicide.鈥�
鈥淲e are all creations of the Creator and everything is his. Except property. That is ours and ours alone and no one better take that from us.鈥�
(Clearly not direct quotes, but Maggie summaries 馃槈)
I found Locke to be much more complicated than I realized, especially when combined with his other writings (Letter on Toleration, exhibit A) and he can鈥檛 be categorized as either a good or bad influence.
March 20, 2025
This guy dropped the first ever politically charged subtweet of his century and he had the Founding Fathers foaming at the mouth. Don鈥檛 think I forgot that the Declaration of Independence stole Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness straight from my GOAT Mr. Locke. Let this be a lesson that subtweeting Trump may someday make you the keystone of a budding government.
Read
September 13, 2024school book EEWWWWW except i actually enjoy philosophy class 馃
April 11, 2019
I've been aware of John Locke for a while now - you could even say I was a bit of a fan of his - so when I saw The Second Treatise of Government in a library, it immediately caught my eye. I swiftly read the introduction to the work and made the decision to carry on reading. Now, I鈥檓 not saying that the introduction (written by editor, Thomas P. Pearson) was particularly interesting, in fact it was quite the opposite, but I was intrigued by the fact that the introduction seemed to point out some possible flaws in Locke鈥檚 ideas.
For those who aren鈥檛 in the know (I鈥檓 so cool,) John Locke is a highly influential 17th century philosopher and enlightened thinker who was famous for his ideas regarding liberty, natural rights, and the role of government. Perhaps most impressive, Locke directly influenced Thomas Jefferson鈥檚 idea for the Declaration of Independence, with many historians making claims that essentially stated Jefferson all but quoted Locke. The Second Treatise of Government is the work of Locke that has had the most influence throughout the years, and, as such, it tells us a great deal about what would become the foundation for most American political philosophy. Locke based his ideas upon the concept of limited government control and innate rights, both of which became key topics in the world of political soon after he helped popularize them with The Second Treatise of Government, which makes this book extremely historically important.
The biggest thing that The Second Treatise of Government has going for it is its importance. Even today, it鈥檚 still incredibly relevant to a good portion of political discourse in America. I am a firm believer that reading up on Locke鈥檚 ideas is a great way to further your understanding of a lot of contemporary American thought. Aside from contextualizing modern issues, it is also a very interesting read, with many unique ideas and perspectives that aren鈥檛 seen commonly in modern times. As a whole, it鈥檚 an entirely different experience from any modern expression of political ideals.
As much as I enjoyed The Second Treatise of Government, it was a bit of a slog to get through. The writing falls on the denser side of the literary spectrum, with certain passages requiring a few takes to fully comprehend. The language is also obviously outdated, due to being written some odd three hundred years ago and the same can be said for some of Locke鈥檚 concepts. A few of Locke鈥檚 ideas aren鈥檛 as applicable to modern times as they were to the 1700s, which can create a bit of a disconnect among 21st century readers. Along with that, there are times when the writing becomes repetitive and drags, creating some immensely boring stretches, but these are in the minority, with the majority of the book being quite interesting.
The Second Treatise of Government definitely isn鈥檛 for everyone and it surely has its flaws, but I would highly recommend it if you鈥檙e interested in contemporary thought or the founding ideals of America.
For those who aren鈥檛 in the know (I鈥檓 so cool,) John Locke is a highly influential 17th century philosopher and enlightened thinker who was famous for his ideas regarding liberty, natural rights, and the role of government. Perhaps most impressive, Locke directly influenced Thomas Jefferson鈥檚 idea for the Declaration of Independence, with many historians making claims that essentially stated Jefferson all but quoted Locke. The Second Treatise of Government is the work of Locke that has had the most influence throughout the years, and, as such, it tells us a great deal about what would become the foundation for most American political philosophy. Locke based his ideas upon the concept of limited government control and innate rights, both of which became key topics in the world of political soon after he helped popularize them with The Second Treatise of Government, which makes this book extremely historically important.
The biggest thing that The Second Treatise of Government has going for it is its importance. Even today, it鈥檚 still incredibly relevant to a good portion of political discourse in America. I am a firm believer that reading up on Locke鈥檚 ideas is a great way to further your understanding of a lot of contemporary American thought. Aside from contextualizing modern issues, it is also a very interesting read, with many unique ideas and perspectives that aren鈥檛 seen commonly in modern times. As a whole, it鈥檚 an entirely different experience from any modern expression of political ideals.
As much as I enjoyed The Second Treatise of Government, it was a bit of a slog to get through. The writing falls on the denser side of the literary spectrum, with certain passages requiring a few takes to fully comprehend. The language is also obviously outdated, due to being written some odd three hundred years ago and the same can be said for some of Locke鈥檚 concepts. A few of Locke鈥檚 ideas aren鈥檛 as applicable to modern times as they were to the 1700s, which can create a bit of a disconnect among 21st century readers. Along with that, there are times when the writing becomes repetitive and drags, creating some immensely boring stretches, but these are in the minority, with the majority of the book being quite interesting.
The Second Treatise of Government definitely isn鈥檛 for everyone and it surely has its flaws, but I would highly recommend it if you鈥檙e interested in contemporary thought or the founding ideals of America.
January 31, 2025
love the way he contradicts himself and kinda says 鈥渨e will never know鈥� to things he has no idea how to answer 鉂わ笍
February 28, 2015
A book much talked about (sometimes maligned) but rarely read. There are several good reasons, namely Locke articulates a rather clear and logically coherent theory of resistance--but more on that later.
Like Hobbes and Rousseau, albeit with different and more godly conclusions, Locke analyzes man in his state of nature. What is this state of nature? It is men living together in reason without a common superior (III.19). If that is so, then why would anyone surrender a portion of his liberty and authority to incorporate into a state? Locke gives a clear, if not entirely consistent answer: men incorporate together because of the precariousness of solitary existence. Agreed, but if the state of nature is what it is, then why do men have to worry?
Labour as Distinction and Valuation:
Labour creates a distinction between 鈥渉is鈥� and 鈥渃ommon.鈥� Labour begins the distinction of property.
Whatever a man cannot use for himself returns to the realm of 鈥渃ommon鈥� (V.29). Locke argues, contra later libertarians, that things have an intrinsic value, though not absolutely so (V.37). Their value depends on their usefulness to the life of man. Labour puts the difference of value on everything (V.40). Labour puts the value on land. Labour gives the right of property (V.45).
Money, however, has subjective value (V.47). It Has value from the consent of men. I think Locke has struck a good balance here. His emphasis on labour and the land maintains a healthy work ethic (a point Adam Smith capitalized on, much to the anger and ire of the Misesian School).
He ends his treatise with a discussion of representative government and the right and limits of resistance.
Like Hobbes and Rousseau, albeit with different and more godly conclusions, Locke analyzes man in his state of nature. What is this state of nature? It is men living together in reason without a common superior (III.19). If that is so, then why would anyone surrender a portion of his liberty and authority to incorporate into a state? Locke gives a clear, if not entirely consistent answer: men incorporate together because of the precariousness of solitary existence. Agreed, but if the state of nature is what it is, then why do men have to worry?
Labour as Distinction and Valuation:
Labour creates a distinction between 鈥渉is鈥� and 鈥渃ommon.鈥� Labour begins the distinction of property.
Whatever a man cannot use for himself returns to the realm of 鈥渃ommon鈥� (V.29). Locke argues, contra later libertarians, that things have an intrinsic value, though not absolutely so (V.37). Their value depends on their usefulness to the life of man. Labour puts the difference of value on everything (V.40). Labour puts the value on land. Labour gives the right of property (V.45).
Money, however, has subjective value (V.47). It Has value from the consent of men. I think Locke has struck a good balance here. His emphasis on labour and the land maintains a healthy work ethic (a point Adam Smith capitalized on, much to the anger and ire of the Misesian School).
He ends his treatise with a discussion of representative government and the right and limits of resistance.
Read
February 23, 2020*sigh
I should preface this by saying that you should only read this book if you are a huge political science geek, going to take POL200 with Clifford Orwin at the University of Toronto, or only have 2 days to live and want it to feel as long as possible.
I think that people might be really upset at me for disliking this book, or claiming that it was 149 pages of drudgery, but my gosh was this boring. Not boring in a 'you just don't understand it' type way, boring in a 鈥榬ip your eyes out, countdown the seconds鈥�, type way. Though, perhaps, that is just the type of thing that a person who 'just didn't understand it' would say.
As for what it concerned, mostly it was a more English, politics-centered, and easier to read than Machiavelli 'Prince', book. It was about the formation of civil societies and was a stew of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rousseau. It concluded, ultimately, the difference between a rebellion and a revolution, and when and under what circumstances either would be acceptable/ justified. By using Hobbes to get to Machiavelli, avoid the state of nature and rebel against religion(including all those who only heard who's)!
At the end of the day, it helped me realize with certainty that political science is not what I want to study-yay-, but if you only have 20 minutes to live, just read a chapter of Hobbes' Leviathan and you might just find that you even have time to brew yourself a tea before you die.
I should preface this by saying that you should only read this book if you are a huge political science geek, going to take POL200 with Clifford Orwin at the University of Toronto, or only have 2 days to live and want it to feel as long as possible.
I think that people might be really upset at me for disliking this book, or claiming that it was 149 pages of drudgery, but my gosh was this boring. Not boring in a 'you just don't understand it' type way, boring in a 鈥榬ip your eyes out, countdown the seconds鈥�, type way. Though, perhaps, that is just the type of thing that a person who 'just didn't understand it' would say.
As for what it concerned, mostly it was a more English, politics-centered, and easier to read than Machiavelli 'Prince', book. It was about the formation of civil societies and was a stew of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rousseau. It concluded, ultimately, the difference between a rebellion and a revolution, and when and under what circumstances either would be acceptable/ justified. By using Hobbes to get to Machiavelli, avoid the state of nature and rebel against religion(including all those who only heard who's)!
At the end of the day, it helped me realize with certainty that political science is not what I want to study-yay-, but if you only have 20 minutes to live, just read a chapter of Hobbes' Leviathan and you might just find that you even have time to brew yourself a tea before you die.
Read
February 26, 2017I've "read" this one twice now and apparently have the same reaction to it. Whereas before, when I read this as a wee bitty freshman in college, and I am now more seasoned to see even more bullshit in this text than before.
Unfortunately, Locke and I will never get along. I understand the pertinence of this text in relation to the ultimate project of America's Founding Fathers. I understand that Locke's analysis of property is essential in understanding modern day capitalism - especially as it relates to land rights and Manifest Destiny. I even understand that Locke sets the foundation for the justification of colonization and chattel slavery.
And I still don't like him.
There's nothing that wins out. He's not only a racist hypocrite, his writing isn't that hot (even Hobbes is better). Very boring. The concepts are interesting but I will have to go with Hobbes' take on the state of nature. Locke's faux concern with democracy is also frustrating, since he obviously does not care about most folks having a say in government. Blah blah blah Locke.
Unfortunately, Locke and I will never get along. I understand the pertinence of this text in relation to the ultimate project of America's Founding Fathers. I understand that Locke's analysis of property is essential in understanding modern day capitalism - especially as it relates to land rights and Manifest Destiny. I even understand that Locke sets the foundation for the justification of colonization and chattel slavery.
And I still don't like him.
There's nothing that wins out. He's not only a racist hypocrite, his writing isn't that hot (even Hobbes is better). Very boring. The concepts are interesting but I will have to go with Hobbes' take on the state of nature. Locke's faux concern with democracy is also frustrating, since he obviously does not care about most folks having a say in government. Blah blah blah Locke.
September 30, 2010
The gist of Locke's political philosophy is amazing, especially in the context of when it was written, but I was disappointed with his fuzziness in a few areas:
Property rights: What if property rights protection causes more harm than benefit to an impoverished local population? Locke's defence of property rights is based, after all, on his proposition that private ownership is preferable to letting resources go to waste. Unfortunately, it seems that what constitutes "going to waste" is subjective.
Rule of the Majority: It's what he advocates and defends on a common-sense level for a few pages, but then never ventures to comment on the danger of tyranny of the majority.
Of course, Locke was confused or untruthful in writing about the legitimacy of human slavery.
And, he also looks at everything, especially in the property chapter, with the notion that whatever is best for mankind is best period. What about the Earth as a whole?
Property rights: What if property rights protection causes more harm than benefit to an impoverished local population? Locke's defence of property rights is based, after all, on his proposition that private ownership is preferable to letting resources go to waste. Unfortunately, it seems that what constitutes "going to waste" is subjective.
Rule of the Majority: It's what he advocates and defends on a common-sense level for a few pages, but then never ventures to comment on the danger of tyranny of the majority.
Of course, Locke was confused or untruthful in writing about the legitimacy of human slavery.
And, he also looks at everything, especially in the property chapter, with the notion that whatever is best for mankind is best period. What about the Earth as a whole?
January 25, 2022
0猸愶笍I hate political science. Why their writing is so complicated?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 601 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.