Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

The bookshelf below includes very good editions of John Locke's principal writings on political philosophy. My forthcoming book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience will discuss in depth the possible influence of Roger Williams on John Locke with regard to liberty of conscience. One difference between them is that Williams supported complete liberty of conscience whereas Locke did not recognize freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and atheists. Moreover, Locke was late to the cause of liberty of conscience. Essays he wrote during the early 1660s, following the Restoration of King Charles II, supported significant restrictions on religious freedom. But a few years later, in 1667, Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Toleration (first published in the nineteenth century), which advocated some the very positions in favor of religious freedom that he had rejected in the earlier two essays. Locke's final position on religious liberty was stated in his Letter Concerning Toleration, published anonymously in 1689. In this work and in subsequent anonymous defenses of it, Locke articulated his view that religious toleration should be extended to all except Roman Catholics and atheists.

Although Thomas Jefferson generally approved of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, he disagreed with Locke's position opposing religious freedom for Roman Catholics and atheists. Jefferson, like Roger Williams before him, taught that no individuals or groups should be excepted from the principle of liberty of conscience. In unpublished notes, Jefferson observed: "Locke denies toleration to those who entertain opns contrary to those moral rules necessary for the preservation of society; as for instance, [the perceived Roman Catholic views] that faith is not to be kept with those of another persuasion, that Kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns, that dominion is founded in grace, or that obedience is due to some foreign prince, or who will not own & teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of religion, or [atheists and perhaps Deists] who deny the existence of a god (it was a great thing to go so far—as he himself sais of the parl. who framed the act of tolern [after the 1688 Glorious Revolution] but where he stopped short we may go on.)" Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Religion", in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, federal ed., ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904-5), 2:267, Liberty Fund, Inc.: Online Library of Liberty, accessed January 17, 2013.

See also posts 4-14 and 19-22 in the Government and the Economy topic of this group.

I have reviewed Ann Talbot, "The Great Ocean of Knowledge": The Influence of Travel Literature on the Work of John Locke (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010) here.

Ann Talbot is a member of this "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group.

As indicated in the linked material in the preceding post, I am currently engaged in a reexamination of The Second Treatise of Government and other works of Locke in light of the academic postcolonial critique of him. I have not yet reached firm conclusions.

I am also attempting to understand Leo Strauss's interpretation of Locke, which I have never been able to comprehend. In rereading Strauss, I note some of his statements in a collection of his writings that he authorized about a year before his death (which occurred in 1973): Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, ed. Thomas Pangle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). Strauss wrote in "On Natural Law" (originally published in 1968) that "Locke's natural law doctrine is the original form of capitalist theory." Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, 145. In an essay on Machiavelli (originally published in 1972), Strauss stated: "Locke enlarged self-preservation to comfortable self-preservation and thus laid the theoretical foundation for the acquisitive society." Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, 212. In a 1964 review of C. B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Strauss generally complimented Macpherson's "serious and lucidly written" book but seemed to question, in the last sentence of the review, its premise: "if [wrote Strauss] the rational society is not the universal socialist society, 'the political theory of possessive individualism' must be examined in the light of a different ideal." Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, 229-31. The discussions by postcolonial and many other scholars of Strauss's interpretation of Locke are usually based on Strauss's discussion of Locke in Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953). However, in a September 1970 Preface to the 7th Impression of that work, Strauss indicated that his views had deepened in the intervening decades and "that if I were to write this book again, I would write it differently." Again, I am still working on trying to develop an adequate understanding of Locke and of Strauss's interpretation of Locke.

When I have made further progress in these inquiries, I will provide an update on my research.

Addendum to my preceding posts in this topic: My book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience was published in July 2015. Appendix D to this book contains a twenty-nine-page study, based mainly on primary sources (cited in an additional twenty-three pages of endnotes), of the possible influence of Roger Williams on John Locke and a comparative analysis of the views of Williams and Locke on liberty of conscience. My analysis in Appendix D is not affected by my current studies regarding Locke, which involve different issues.

Alan wrote: "As indicated in the linked material in the preceding post, I am currently engaged in a reexamination of The Second Treatise of Government and other works of Locke in light of the academic postcolon...I note some of his statements in a collection of his writings that he authorized about a year before his death (which occurred in 1973): Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, ed. Thomas Pangle" . . . In a 1964 review of C. B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Strauss generally complimented Macpherson's "serious and lucidly written" book but seemed to question, in the last sentence of the review, its premise . . . Strauss's discussion of Locke in Natural Right and History . . .

Alan,

I have all of these books on my shelf and actually read most all of them, but many years ago. I think I have shared my admiration for C.B.Macpherson. An interesting teacher of mine from university spent time with Macpherson in Toronto before quitting political theory professing for good. It would do me good to re-read these and Locke as well. If you haven't read Possessive Individualism I think it would be good to round out your view of Hobbes and Locke.

And thanks for pointing out Talbot's interesting-looking book. I still need to get to your Roger Williams book. I am reading Tocqueville's Democracy in America at the moment and was surprised to see that Roger Williams is not mentioned.

Cheers,

Randal

Thanks, Randal. I have Macpherson's book and plan to read it as part of my continuing study of Locke.

Although Tocqueville did not explicitly mention Roger Williams, he commented favorably on chapter 3 of the first volume of Jeremy Belknap's History of New-Hampshire, published in 1784: "In that chapter the author gives extremely precious details about the political and religious principles of the Puritans, about the causes of their emigration, and about their laws. . . . Readers will encounter in Belknap more general ideas and more force of thought than other American historians have presented up to the present." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 688-89. In chapter 3 of volume 1 of his History of New-Hampshire, Belknap described in some detail "the union . . . formed [by Massachusetts Bay] between the church and state on the plan of the Jewish theocracy" and the resulting persecutions of religious dissenters. Ibid., 75-99; the quotation is at 80. Belknap repeated many of the arguments of Roger Williams for liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. He discussed the banishment of Williams and the dispute between Williams and John Cotton on the issues of freedom of conscience and church-state separation. Ibid., 85. Belknap clearly favored Williams's position over Cotton's.

The foregoing discussion of Belknap and Tocqueville is extracted, with some modifications, from pages 285-86 of my First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.

It must be kept in mind that Roger Williams was hated in Massachusetts, which did not abandon governmental religion until 1833, and in the New England states generally, which retained aspects of seventeenth-century theocracy (Connecticut, for example, had an established church until about 1818). Some notable exceptions are discussed in my book. The First Amendment Religion Clauses (Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses) were not applied to the states until the Supreme Court applied them to state and local government by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified 1868) during the twentieth century. Accordingly, Tocqueville might have been adopting a diplomatic posture in praising Williams only indirectly.

Alan wrote: " . . . Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 688-89 . . . It must be kept in mind that Roger Williams was hated in Massachusetts, which did not abandon governmental religion until 1833, and in the New England states generally, which retained aspects of seventeenth-century theocracy (Connecticut, for example, had an established church until about 1818)...."

Alan,

I haven't gotten all the way to pages 688-689 in Tocqueville! I have the Library of America edition with the "new" (in 2004) translation by Goldhammer. This edition has a nice mini biography (chronology) of Tocqueville's life (as in all of the LoA volumes).

What I get from this is that Tocqueville was a complex man: a man from an aristocratic family whose great-grandfather, grandfather, grandmother, aunt and uncle were all guillotined and whose parents escaped the same fate only after Robespierre's own beheading, but who, in spite of this, grew to hold generally liberal republican sentiments,opposed slavery and at the end of his brief life apparently had lost his "faith." Yet this didn't cause him to say anything that I can see that is heterodox in regard to religion in the bit of Democracy that I have read so far. Perhaps an example of "Persecution and the Art of Writing!"

Cheers,

Randal

Randal,

I read substantial portions of the Henry Reeve translation of Democracy in America for a course in my second year of college. I later read part of the George Lawrence translation for another course. Much later, I read the entirety of one of these translations (not sure which one) in the early 1990s and published, at the request of a friend, an article entitled "Why Read Tocqueville?" in History Matters! (a publication of the National Council for History Education, Inc.) 5, no. 6 (February 1993) (my friend was then the editor of this publication). I recently tried to find this article in my stored boxes, but I must have thrown it out, accidentally, in one of my several moves since that time. Additionally, it does not seem to be available online. Needless to say, my essay was written and published before I owned a computer, and I don't have it saved in Word (which in any event was totally unknown to me at that time). Anyway, I remember being quite impressed with Democracy in America when I read the whole thing in the early 1990s. Since I have not read that work again since that time, I certainly don't have it at the forefront of my mind. However, in 2002 I purchased the Harvey Mansfield/Delba Winthrop translation of Democracy in America on the assumption that Straussians usually translate as accurately as possible. (Since I do not know French, I have no basis to evaluate the various translations.) I have not yet read the latter translation, but I checked the Index for "Williams, Roger" (no entry) and for "Belknap, Jeremy" when I wrote my book on Roger Williams. That's how I found the information about Belknap. (I had already downloaded the original of the Belknap book online through Google Books or another such service.) I don't have the LOA edition (three editions are enough!) of Democracy in America, but the passage I referenced and partially quoted is located in Tocqueville's Note VI, which appears to be referenced near the end of volume 1, part 1, chapter 2 of the work. Mansfield/Winthrop put Note VI in an endnote. I'm not sure where it was located in the original or in the LOA edition.

I purchased the Stuart Gilbert translation of Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the French Revolution in 1968 and either read it at that time for a course or read it later. I was also much impressed with that work, though I don't recall much of it now. At some point I also read the George Lawrence translation of Tocqueville's Recollections. This book, based on Tocqueville's own parliamentary experiences during the Revolution of 1848, was quite fascinating.

It's been more than fifteen years since I've read these Tocqueville writings, and I will have to reread them again sometime during the next few years. Tocqueville is one of those writers whose writing is always of great interest from both a political and literary perspective. Unfortunately, since I don't know French, I cannot experience the thrill of reading these books in the language in which he wrote them.

Best,

Alan

See my post # 25 in the Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836) topic of this group.

I have also briefly reviewed The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, 3rd ed., ed. Robert H. Horwitz (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1986) here. Several of these essays discuss John Locke.

In 1636, Roger Williams and his associates established a political society in Providence (later in Rhode Island) based on a purely secular social compact (without, at that time, any charter from the English king). Although this was a classic historical example of a transition between a state of nature and a social contract creating a political entity, John Locke was only four years old when it occurred and was totally silent about it in his famous Two Treatises of Government, first published in 1689. Accordingly, Locke's Second Treatise of Government did not invent the concept of the secular social compact. However, similar social contract theories (often mixed with theological notions as in the 1620 Mayflower Compact) had been discussed for centuries before the times of the Pilgrims and of Roger Williams. For further information, see Alan E. Johnson, The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Pittsburgh: Philosophia Publications, 2015), chaps. 3 (pp. 61-73) 7 (pp. 463-64, n. 2), and app. C. See also Andrew C. McLaughlin, Foundations of American Constitutionalism (New York: Fawcett, 1961), esp. 73n6.

After a few months of additional study of the writings of John Locke and of scholarly discussions of Locke, I have concluded, with Socrates, that "what I don't know, I don't think I know." When I first read Locke, in high school, I thought that the basic outlines of his political philosophy were clear to me. Indeed, I thought they were the same principles that were set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and other pronouncements of the US Founders. I still adhere to my original position to a considerable extent with regard to Locke's political theory proper. However, my reading of portions of the vast secondary literature on Locke has made me realize that Locke is much more complicated than what I earlier realized. This is especially true of Locke's influence on the development of the modern capitalist economy. It would be easier if the scholars agreed. But, of course, they don't. I now anticipate that I will not be prepared to take a position on such issues for some time, if ever. In the meantime, I will continue to study Locke and other philosophers.

In other posts, I had indicated that I would prepare and publish an essay entitled "Thomas More, Roger Williams, and John Locke on Freedom of Conscience, Land Ownership, and Slavery." Although I have completed the sections of this essay on More and Williams as well as the portion of the essay discussing Locke's concept of toleration, it has been impossible, in light of the foregoing considerations, to prepare the sections addressing Locke's views on land ownership and slavery. Williams's positions on freedom of conscience and separation of church and state are fully discussed in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. Williams's views on land ownership and slavery are also set forth in this book. See also my errata and supplemental comments here. No further explication of Williams's views is necessary at this time. With regard to More, see the topic Thomas More (1478-1535). Although Locke's approach to toleration is discussed at length in Appendix D of my book, I will not be addressing his views on land ownership, slavery, and related matters in the near future.

Follow-up to posts 4, 6, and 7, above, re C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (1962; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

I finished reading The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism this evening. This is one of the books to which my immediately preceding post was referring. I probably agree with about one-third of Macpherson's book, probably disagree with another third, and am very much unsure about the remaining third. That said, Macpherson has a very interesting and in-depth discussion of Locke as well as of Hobbes, the Levellers, and Harrington. His approach, albeit somewhat reductive, is quite thought-provoking and bears further study and reflection. He suggests in the concluding two pages (276-77) that the possessive individualism regime can be overcome only by amending Hobbes, "this time more clearly than he was by Locke," in the face of the "new equality of insecurity" caused by twentieth-century technology. He was obviously referring to the threat of thermonuclear war, which was very much on everyone's mind when he published this book in 1962. He suggested that the people of the world could somehow unite into a world state (p. 276). This, of course, was even more of a utopian fantasy during the height of the Cold War (the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962) than it is today. I have ordered two of his later books: The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy (1977; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) and The Rise and Fall of Economic Justice and Other Essays (1985; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). It will be interesting to see whether he sets forth more realistic proposals in these subsequently published books.

But although I look forward to reading Macpherson's other books as well as studying further the modern philosophers, I need a break from modernity. I'm going back to Plato for awhile—to a philosopher who considered reason to be an end in itself and not just a means to the satisfaction of human needs, wants, and passions.

Alan wrote: "He (MacPherson) suggests in the concluding two pages (276-77) that the possessive individualism regime can be overcome only by amending Hobbes, "this time more clearly than he was by Locke," in the face of the "new equality of insecurity" caused by twentieth-century technology. . . . He suggested that the people of the world could somehow unite into a world state (p. 276). This, of course, was even more of a utopian fantasy during the height of the Cold War (the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962) than it is today...."

Alan,

I am not so sure that this is utopian fantasy.

In fact, we very much still have the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over us. Putin is very much using that threat to advance his goals today. What's more, we have another threat resulting from the success of the possessive individualism project: anthropogenic climate disruption; in many ways as damaging as a nuclear winter.

But capitalism has also been successful in spreading around the globe in a way that was not thought realistic in 1962. And the internet makes it possible to communicate a large bandwidth of information in an instant to a wide audience. The perspective of seeing our blue planet from space was not available in 1962 (except to Yuri Gagarin). We have a functioning global political body which was able to reach an agreement among nearly 200 nations on the planet that anthropogenic climate change EXISTS and must be managed cooperatively.

We have seen the Hobbesian state of nature, not just in the English Civil War and all of the wars that followed, but also depicted in film today in the Mad Max and many other dramas. We know now that we have a choice: Mad Max or cooperation.

Plato made his effort to convince Dionysius of the virtues of republican government. He failed. But we do not live in a timeless world of ideas (nor did Plato!) We live in a world of real time where consequences accumulate. But change is also possible. We can bend the "arc of the moral universe" towards justice. Will we? Don't know, but we can hope we can.

BTW, I don't think you will be very much more satisfied by The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy than you were by the Possessive Individualism book. I haven't read this, but I think this is a warmed over version of The Real World of Democracy, which is based on lectures that MacPherson gave on CBC in 1965. Towards the end of this book (in Chapter 6, not included in the CBC archive referenced above) he says, "The societies which can best meet the demand of their own people for equal human rights, equal freedom for their members to realize their essential humanity, will be the ones that survive. . . . What I am suggesting is that in the world from now on, power and influence will depend on moral advantage. And I am suggesting that we in the West will decline in power unless we can discard our possessive market morality." After reading a review of the recently published Guantanamo Diaries I am not so sure that the US is not seeing that decline in power as a result of that loss of moral advantage of which MacPherson spoke.

So yes, MacPherson's views are dated in a way, but his thinking also has an historical perspective, albeit one focused mainly on the West. And which still bears on our world (IMHO!)

Cheers,

Randal

Thanks, Randal, for your thoughts.

I still think that a world government (except perhaps one modeled on a totalitarian or authoritarian system that could have resulted only from a conquest by the Soviet Union of the West, which would never have happened) was impossible in 1962. It still is not possible today for a whole host of reasons. In any event, from a cursory look at Macpherson's last books (referenced in my earlier post), it appears that he himself changed his mind about that solution. I believe he had other solutions, along the lines of what we now call democratic socialism, but I haven't actually read those books yet, so please take my summary with a grain of salt.

I do think that Macpherson was on to something in developing his theory of possessive individualism, though I don't necessarily agree with all the details of his analysis. For example, he sometimes seems to take a premise of an argument totally out of thin air--I don't know where the heck he is coming from in such instances.

Leo Strauss himself (who was hardly a socialist, though rumor has it he voted for Adlai Stevenson over Ike, much to the chagrin of many "Straussians") independently came to similar interpretations of Hobbes and Locke, though Strauss thought that Hobbes's war of all against all could not be reduced, as Macpherson thought, to economic relationships: "Nor is Hobbes' view of men's natural competitiveness a reflex of the emerging market society; Hobbes found or would have found clear signs of that competitiveness not only in the market but in the courts of kings, in convents, in drawing rooms, and in slave pens, in modern as well as in ancient times." Leo Strauss, "Review of C. B. Macpherson[,] The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism[:] Hobbes to Locke" (reprinted from the Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 45, no. 1 (1964)), in Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 230 (this book was first published about a decade after Strauss's death but pursuant to his instructions).

For many reasons, some of which you cited, I am not optimistic about the future. However, one must not succumb to despair but rather do what one can, within the parameters of one's limited knowledge and ability, to make things a little bit better. Strauss and Macpherson, in their own separate ways, made such attempts, and we can be grateful for their respective contributions. I've said for a long time that progress occurs but that it is very slow. We no longer have slavery, for example, though many other injustices remain. But moral progress occurs, however gradually and notwithstanding many setbacks, when enough individuals make an effort over a long period of time. So let us work for improvement but not be surprised when the opposite prevails.

Randal wrote: "After reading a review of the recently published Guantanamo Diaries I am not so sure that the US is not seeing that decline in power as a result of that loss of moral advantage of which MacPherson spoke."

This review is by Steve Coll, who wrote an excellent book that I read about a decade ago: Ghost Wars: The Secret History Of The CIA, Afghanistan, And Bin Laden, From The Soviet Invasion To September 10, 2001.

Although I have a New York Times digital subscription, I cannot access the entirety of this New York Review of Books article. I thought that this publication was part of the New York Times but perhaps not: I have had problems before with accessing it. Anyway, I read enough of the article to get the gist of it. I really don't know what should be done with the remaining Guantanamo prisoners. Congress won't let Obama or anyone else detain them in the US. The torture practiced on them in the last decade was abominable, but now what? I haven't followed all the Supreme Court decisions regarding them, but I do think the prisoners should at least obtain some kind of hearing to determine whether they actually were involved in terrorist activities. If not, they should be released. It's my understanding that at least some of these prisoners are probably innocent but were swept up in the hysteria that followed 9/11. Any such innocent prisoners should be released, though it is likely that they were radicalized in detention even if they weren't radicalized before being abducted. At this point, there is no good solution, thanks largely to Cheney and Rumsfeld. And there are people running for president that want to start this whole thing all over again.

Alan wrote: "Although I have a New York Times digital subscription, I cannot access the entirety of this New York Review of Books article. I thought that this publication was part of the New York Times but perhaps not: I have had problems before with accessing it...."

Alan,

The NYRB is very much a separate publication. It is a book review and medium-form analysis mag that was started by Robert Silvers in NYC in the 1960s. Many of my favorite authors, Hannah Arendt, Garry Wills, and so many more, wrote or (still) write regularly for the NYRB. I have been a subscriber for nearly 50 years! The Wikipedia article on it is very good.

Happy Happy,

Randal

Alan wrote (post 9, above): " I read substantial portions of the Henry Reeve translation of Democracy in America for a course in my second year of college. I later read part of the George Lawrence translation for another course. Much later, I read the entirety of one of these translations (not sure which one) in the early 1990s and published, at the request of a friend, an article entitled "Why Read Tocqueville?" in History Matters! (a publication of the National Council for History Education, Inc.) 5, no. 6 (February 1993) (my friend was then the editor of this publication). I recently tried to find this article in my stored boxes, but I must have thrown it out, accidentally, in one of my several moves since that time. Additionally, it does not seem to be available online."

I found my 1993 article "Why Read Tocqueville?" today while looking for something else. I have now posted it here. This essay provides an overall appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and does not purport to analyze that tome in depth. More than two decades later, I still agree with most of what I wrote in this article, though I would be more alert to the problem of Tocqueville's use of Cotton Mather as a source of New England history. Tocqueville did, however, speak highly of chapter 3 of volume 1 of Jeremy Belknap's "History of New-Hampshire" (1784) with regard to New England history, and that chapter of Belknap's history favorably discussed Roger Williams at some length. See Alan E. Johnson, "The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience" (Pittsburgh: Philosophia Publications, 2015), 13, 28-30, 285-86, 325.

By the way, it was the Henry Reeve translation that I read in 1992-93, with an introduction by John Stuart Mill. When I revisit this work, I'll read the Mansfield-Winthrop translation.

See #123 at "International Law and Politics" for comment on Locke's distinction between "state of nature" and "social contract."

Robert wrote: "See #123 at "International Law and Politics" for comment on Locke's distinction between "state of nature" and "social contract.""

I've had reason tonight to hone in on just this point; and traversed over to that discussion. Fun stuff. But: while the concept of 'nations-states behaving as in a state-of-nature' is interesting, I'm also seeking more posts which treat exactly to what degree Locke was instilled into our US Constitution.

I realize this is a vast topic and I'm sure there are many such posts regarding this area of law; and I'm sure that I could tease them out if I defined my search-terms better.

But while I poke around our various reservoirs of stored discussion, is it tacitly safe to say just this?

Our Founders --although emphasizing Locke's 'natural rights of man' in our Constitution, retreat from him at some point, and turn instead to Rousseau's social-contract theory?

I don't just mean the famous Jefferson divergence from Locke in the statement of, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' versus 'life, liberty, and property'.

I mean, in the fashioning of the Constitutional principles which determine how far individuals must submit to all-our-other-laws which restrict man's so-called 'natural' rights.

For example, Locke's admiration for 'natural rights', hardly ever succeeds as a valid defense in this day and age, whenever an American stubbornly wants to refuse to comply with some statute or ordinance, no? An example might be, income tax.

One can't get away with, "I'm not paying income tax" based on Locke's 'natural right' theory --even though, the American Constitution stems in many other regards, also from Locke himself. Correct?

When it comes down to concrete instances of whether citizens are law-abiding or not, principles like 'consent of the governed' come to the fore, yes? We agree to forego certain rights for the sake of the state; and it's too late to refuse this Rousseau-ian social-contract unless one wants to deliberately flout our system of law. We have a collective interest in this arrangement. Is this fair to say?

(Just woolgathering, thanks. Not an urgent or dire inquiry).

Feliks, I'm extremely busy for the next couple of weeks and cannot take the time to address your specific questions. However, Locke (and before him, Hobbes) had a social contract theory before Rousseau did. As indicated in my posts in the Rousseau topic, Rousseau's General Will gives rise to the tyranny of the majority. My own views are set forth in the present Locke topic and in the Rousseau topic. No time right now to repeat or elaborate on them here. Alan

Hi Alan,

Time constraints and schedule: I understand. No rush. Perhaps one of the Roberts might weigh in while you are busy.

I concede that Rousseau is 'my' choice of figurehead for social-contract theory; and that he's not the first or always the most ideal proponent for the idea.

Still --out of my own curiosity on this juxtaposition between these two sets of ideas --I will keep browsing old threads in the mean while, as you suggest I ought do.

Thanks!

Commentary on Locke's Second Treatise of Government is included in post #174 in "Philosophy Without Borders."

Thank you Robert. I'm perusing that link. I'm rather curious about the idea of a 'general will towards the good'. Something one hardly ever sees talked about as a factor in political unrest. Or, whenever it is treated, it might be called Burke-ism. Styled as conservatism or traditionalism. But after all, isn't there usually a general inclination --in any populace --for law and order? Even though things can veer sharply off into 'terrorism'; don't people generally want to live in peace? Does this count for nothing? Just wondering.

Feliks, you might find food for thought in what interests you in David Brooks, a NY Times columnist who has written a number of books. He has also appeared on TV in different forums. I’ve heard him describe his indebtedness to Edmund Burke. He said that when he first read Burke in college he didn’t like him but over the years he kept going back to him and in time Burke shaped his conservatism, not libertarian absolutizing of liberty but traditionalist skepticism of grandiose social engineering. Brooks probably discusses Burke in his books. I haven’t read any of them so I can’t say for sure, but Burke’s influence must be evident in all of them. If you have never seen Brooks, you can see him on the Friday show of public broadcasting’s New Hour. The Friday show contains a segment in which a liberal and a conservative discuss the news of the week. Brooks has been in the conservative seat for many years. Sometimes there is a substitute, but most weeks he is there.

Englishman Algernon Sidney; contemporary of John Locke and possessed of similar intellectual leanings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerno...

"Sidney's 'Discourses Concerning Government' along with Locke's 'Two Treatises on Government' are recognized as critical works in the founding of the United States of America. The founding fathers read and studied these works during their years as students in the early colonial universities. Thomas Jefferson in particular, is known to have heavily studied and researched the works of Locke and Sidney. 'The Discourses Concerning Government' has been called the "textbook of the American Revolution."

Feliks wrote: "Englishman Algernon Sidney; contemporary of John Locke and possessed of similar intellectual leanings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerno...


"Sidney's 'Discourses Concerning Government..."

Yes, Sidney was one of the major influences on the US Founders.

Alan wrote: "Yes, Sidney was one of the major influences on Founders...."

As was Demosthenes, I am happy to learn. Wonderful!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosth...

"...he constituted a source of inspiration for the authors of 'The Federalist Papers' "

File under: things my high school never taught me. My K-12 apparatchik never heard of Greece; as far as I could make out at the time. All freedoms began in 1776.

Feliks wrote: "Alan wrote: "Yes, Sidney was one of the major influences on Founders...."

As was Demosthenes, I am happy to learn. Wonderful!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosth...

"...he constituted a source of inspiration for the authors of 'The Federalist Papers' ""

There is only one minor, passing reference to Demosthenes in The Federalist, and that is in Federalist No. 18. Moreover, a word search for Demosthenes in Founders Online (https://founders.archives.gov/) also produces only a few minor references, none of which involves the main themes of the Founders’ political philosophy.

I have read many primary and secondary sources on the Founders, and none of these indicates that Demosthenes was a major influence on the Founders’ substantive political views.

Although Wikipedia is often helpful as general background, it is occasionally misleading, as in this case.

ROGER WILLIAMS AND JOHN LOCKE

I have now posted Appendix D (“Roger Williams and John Locke”) to my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience on Academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/103480220/Ro....

Appendix D explores in depth the historical and philosophical influences that Roger Williams’s seventeenth-century writings on freedom of conscience had on the evolution of John Locke’s views on toleration a generation later. It elaborates both the surprising historical connections between Williams and Locke and the fact that Locke’s famous Letter Concerning Toleration (1689–90) as well as some of his earlier unpublished writings adopt many of Williams’s ideas, sometimes almost verbatim.

An ongoing discussion of the above-lined Academia post is at https://www.academia.edu/s/2c28ff1704.... You are welcome to join the discussion if you have an interest in this subject.

I am cross-filing the present post in the “Roger Williams,” “John Locke,” and “Theocracy and Erastianism” topics of this Goodreads group.

John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and the Declaration of Independence

I have posted today my paper titled “John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and the Declaration of Independence” on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/122721285/Jo....

Synopsis: Thomas Jefferson was the principal architect of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, but the Second Continental Congress modified his draft. This essay discusses the famous first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Declaration: how Jefferson’s draft of this language was changed, and what it means in light of John Locke and Abraham Lincoln.

I am cross-filing the present post in the following topics of this Goodreads group: American Political History, 1763–89; John Locke; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; and Abraham Lincoln.

LEO STRAUSS’S INTERPRETATION OF JOHN LOCKE’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

See my essay titled “Leo Strauss’s Interpretation of John Locke’s Political Philosophy” at https://www.academia.edu/127217398/LE....