John Locke, a radical or reactionary

[Holden Caulfield]

Let me first state I mean this to be a discussion about his work in their own context.

I once had an msn debate with Kindles on whether Locke was a bourgeois radical, that is to say he was a progressive voice, who aimed salvos at the autocratic feudalist monarchy. However he disagreed, stating that after the glorious revolution the monarchs powers actually increased (I think this was his line of thought, i could be wrong).

Do people think that Locke was a 'radical' in what he said and supported or not?

..............................................

EDIT: MY ESSAY ON THE SUBJECT

Through the course of this essay we shall attempt to prove that John Locke was, and therefore can be considered to be, a radical thinker[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn1): That is to say somebody who’s ideas, and perhaps to a lesser degree who’s actions, represent a progressive step in the political development of a nation and a break from traditional modes of governance and thought. [2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn2) We shall do this by looking at four selected points of debate, they are: the context in which Locke wrote, the Social Contract (SC), the Right of Revolution, and finally we shall discuss Property and Class Politics.


As with any individual Locke’s ideas changed over time, the most drastic change occurring after coming under the patronage of Whig Politician Lord Shaftesbury, we shall be focussing on Locke in the period after this shift in thinking as it was in this time he was most active and when his magnum opus ‘Two Treatises Of Government’ was written. We shall neglect to discuss Locke’s earlier writings in which he proclaims of himself: “there is no one can have a greater respect and veneration for authority than I”[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn3), partly because he himself negated such views in his later works, and partly because they do not represent such a significant section of his political writings.


It is prudent to give context to the times Locke wrote in, that is the period following the English Civil War when the monarchy had been restored and the Exclusion Crisis had taken place. The monarchy was aiming to reassert its power and Stewart monarchs attempted to circumnavigate parliament and establish an absolutist regime akin to that of Louis XIV in France. Affectively this was a form of counter revolution against the restraints put on monarchy after the victory of parliament in the War. This was resolved by inviting William and Mary to take up the monarchy, albeit with restrictions on their power[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn4) .The political and ideological resistance to absolutism came from those who placed liberty and property at the centre of political theory, the Liberals. Locke has been called the “founding father of Liberalism”[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn5) and in this essay we shall outline why.


Unlike his contemporary Robert Filmer, Locke was a Social Contract Theorist. Filmer supported the Stewart conception that the monarch was the hereditary beneficiary of the ‘divine right of the King’ on the basis that God had given Adam kingship of the world, this, to Filmer, demonstrated that monarchy was the divinely ordained form of government. With this assertion came the ideas that the monarch was a ‘father’ to his subjects who had the right to (among other things) ‘instruct’[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn6) people as he willed thus giving a monarch justification for the wielding of absolute power[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn7).


The Social Contract (SC) method “proved useful to radical and liberal theorists”[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn8) as it assumed an equality of man and an agreement between sovereign and subject not found in other theories. The use of Social Contract Theory (SCT) alone, however, does not make Locke’s ideas radical. Thomas Hobbes had also been a proponent of a Social Contract but, as we will discuss later, the actions of Hobbes sovereign were not based upon the consent of the people[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn9). One can consider the use of SCT to be a radical form for basing arguments, however it is the terms of this contract that make Locke a radical in a way Hobbes was not. Both Filmer and Hobbes differ from Locke as he states “The ruler [should] not stand opposite the people, he is one of them, but entrusted with exceptional duties”[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn10). This quote gives reference to Hobbes’ sovereign, who in not being party to any binding clauses of the social contract is placed above the people as an absolutist sovereign.


Locke argued that in the state of nature exists an “equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” and therefore “[people] should be equal between amongst another without subordination or subjection”[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn11) . Also stated is that there exists a ‘Law of Nature’ this is the drive one has to “preserve himself” and a duty to try and “preserve the rest of mankind”[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn12). In political society[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn13) these factors necessitate the existence of a system of government that ensures “the Liberty of man [... is] under no other legislative power, but that established by consent”.[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn14)

“Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent”[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn15)

This concept has several consequences; firstly the sovereign must act in a way that ensures continuing consent, that is to say that the sovereign must act within the interests of the people. Although not rule by the people, this ensures a proto-democratic system of rule for the people. This is in stark contrast to the opinion expressed by Charles II, when he was recorded speaking of his subjects “due obedience to the sovereign”[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn16), drawing on the concept of subjects duty to the sovereign rather than the sovereign’s duty to their subjects.


The Sovereign, according to Locke, ceases to hold authority over their subjects when the consent of the people is lost. When the sovereign ceases to uphold the SC and act in the interests of the people Locke states they are “acting contrary to their trust”[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn17) and have thus forfeited their own position. When the consented form of government is “by the arbitrary power [...] altered without consent”[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn18) then the sovereign is breaking the SC, this idea is distinct from Hobbes thought that “words without the sword, are but words”[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn19), that is to say that power can and should be used to enforce the will of the sovereign.

Locke’s ideas are radical in so much as they break from the accepted ideas of Hobbes and Filmer, such as an unaccountable sovereign, but also because they justify radical acts such as the Whigs role in the Exclusion Crisis or in their resistance to Popery. The ascension of a Catholic monarch would to Locke, break the SC as Catholics are bound to follow a Roman Pope, thus altering the legislature. Hobbes was against impeaching the sovereign as he imagined it would lead to a return to the state of nature where life was “nasty, brutish [and] short”[20] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn20), therefore enduring the rule of a tyrant was better than removing them, Locke however stated that this act would keep us in civil society from which a new government can be established. This is an important distinction as Hobbes prediction coerces the people, holding them hostage with the threat of a ‘return to nature’, to dissuade them from dissenting. The need for consent and the removal of authority when this is lost, coupled with the idea that society would not end with the sovereigns rule are the foundations of Locke’s most radical proposal, that there exists a right of revolution.

As already stated revolution was justified by Locke; when the sovereign broke the SC they “put themselves into a state of war with the people”[21] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn21), therefore the citizens had both the right to, and a duty to remove them and establish a new sovereign. Some question Locke’s meaning on ‘revolution’, such as Lloyd Thomas who asked “whether Locke’s position would permit forcible [...] resistance”[22] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn22). To this one can claim that when the sovereign breaches their trust they become subject to the law of nature, and therefore subjects have a right to resist the aggressor “with force”[23] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn23), “thus sanctioning tyrannicide”[24] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn24). It is fair to say that in both words and in deeds Locke supported the use of lethal force if necessary, he had “been friendly with, and put up in his lodgings, Robert Weiss”[25] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn25) a central conspirator in the Rye House Assassination Plot as well as being strongly linked to the Monmouth Rebellion[26] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn26). There was enough suspicion of his allegiances to warrant him fleeing to Holland to live as an exile for 6 years; another indication Locke was not part of the conservative milieu of his era.


Lloyd Thomas questioning continues asking if justification would be given to “resistance to a government violating the rights of some of its citizens if the majority were not moved to withdraw its trust”.[27] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn27) In answer to this there are many possible answers (in regards to varying situations), however one can assume that Locke would justify if it was the interests of ‘his’ strata of society being infringed. It is reasonable to state that Locke is a radical precisely because of this bias, because he “[identified] the interests of the nation with the interests of its investing and trading classes”[28] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn28) making a progressive step forwards from feudalist views of the national interest. To further demonstrate Locke’s radical ‘Bourgeois Ideology’ one can look at his formulation of property rights.


Locke stated that God had given the earth to mankind, however “he gave it to the use of the industrious and rational [...] not the fancy”[29] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn29) this statement is qualified by the assertion that “largeness of landownership [...] is tied to an exchange of its ‘useful products’”[30] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn30). These two statements are an attack, by the mercantile bourgeois, at a landed aristocracy. This attack can be taken literally; that Locke thinks leisurely estates should be made productive for the benefit of the nation. However one can also infer that Locke is writing of the political power and authority, stating that the dominant economic, and most productive, class should be the political authority in the nation as it is by their industry that the nation is wealthy.


“The political message [...] was clear enough: Artisans, small gentry, yeoman farmers, tradesmen and merchants were all productive members of society and ought, therefore, to unite in the pursuit of their interests against the idle and wasteful landowning aristocracy”[31] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn31).

There also exists a wealth of ‘circumstantial’ evidence to highlight Locke’s radicalism, for example although printed in 1689 the ‘Two Treatises of Government’ is now thought to have been written before the Glorious Revolution in 1683. This is significant as it transforms the work from being a justification or apology for an already successful revolution into being a call for a revolution. The reason for the delay in publication can be seen as being down to fear of reprisals such as being tried for treason for undermining the authority of the monarch, hardly the actions of one who is not ‘radical’. In fact it could be reasonably argued that it was published when it was because “the installation of William and Mary was not as radical as he [Locke] had hoped”[32] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn32). Secondly there is evidence to link Locke with, as mentioned, the conspirators of the Rye House Plot and the ‘Green Ribbon Club’[33] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn33) (an insurrectionary intra-class organisation). Lastly[34] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn34) Shaftesbury’s political convictions also add to the case for Locke radicalism: “Shaftesbury was the most vehement supporter of the idea of rebellion [and] it can scarcely be doubted that Locke shared his patrons view”[35] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn35).

Locke was a radical thinker due to his mode of thought; his use of a Social Contract based on consent of the people would be adopted by radical thinkers in the French and American Revolutions and signifies the radical nature of his thought. It can be claimed he is politically radical “simply [because of], the relevance of [his] argument to an existing political movement within his society”[36] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftn36). This relevance is due to him being among the first proponents of Liberalism and of bourgeois political theory, because he stressed the centrality of ‘life, liberty and property’.

[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref1) “as a description of their location on the far left end of the political spectrum as existed during the period of their activities” – Richard Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ (New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1986) xvii

[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref2) Oxford English Dictionary Online ‘Entry: Radical’ (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/radical?view=uk (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/radical?view=uk) 28 November 2009)

[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref3) John Locke ‘Two Tracts on Government’ ed. Philip Abrams (London: Cambridge University Press: 1967) 119

[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref4) Restrictions such as the inability to keep a standing army, or to raise taxes independently of parliament, for example.

[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref5)Richard Ashcraft & J.G. Pocock ‘John Locke’ (Los Angeles: University of California 1980) 12

[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref6) Robert Filmer ‘Patriarcha and Other Writings’ ed. J.P Somerville (London: Cambridge University Press 1991) 12

[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref7) The absolute power of a father over a child, and the existence biblical evidence used by Filmer to support this is something successfully contested by Locke in his ‘First Treatise of Government’

[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref8) R.I Aaron ‘John Locke’ (London: Oxford University Press 1937) 275

[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref9) Hobbes would disagree upon this point, however there is a gulf of difference between his idea that there exists a reasonable choice between consenting to tyranny and consenting to be outlawed and killed and Locke’s conception of the consent of the people.

[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref10) Aaron ‘John Locke’ 276

[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref11) John Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ (London: Fletcher & Son 1976) 4

[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref12) Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ 5

[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref13) A full account of how and why one moves from a State of Nature to a Political Society cannot be given in this essay due to extraneous constraints

[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref14) Massimo Salvadori ed. ‘Locke and Liberty: Selections from the Works of John Locke’ (London: Pall Mall Press 1959) xxxvii

[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref15) Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ 49

[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref16) Richard Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ (New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1986) 17

[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref17) Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ 109

[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref18)Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ 106


[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref19) Thomas Hobbes cited from: E.J Lowe ‘Locke’ (London: Routledge 2005) 172

[20] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref20) Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan’ (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Q4nPYeps6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=leviathan#v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Q4nPYeps6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=leviathan#v=onepage&q=&f=false) 28 November 2009) 86

[21] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref21) Locke ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ 109

[22] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref22) Lloyd Thomas ‘Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Locke on Government’ (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006) 72

[23] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref23)V. Chappell ‘The Cambridge Companion to Locke’ (London: Cambridge University Press 1994) Richard Ashcraft Chapter 9, ‘Locke’s Political Philosophy’ 230

[24] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref24) Ashcraft ‘Locke’s Political Philosophy’ 230

[25] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref25)Ashcraft & Pocock ‘John Locke’ 46

[26] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref26) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 144

[27] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref27) Thomas ‘Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Locke on Government’ 72

[28] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref28) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 84

[29] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref29) Salvadori ‘Locke and Liberty: Selections from the Works of John Locke’ 156

[30] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref30) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 279

[31] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref31) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 281

[32] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref32) E.J. Lowe ‘Locke’ (London: Routledge 2005) 161

[33] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref33) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 144

[34] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref34) Space will not allow further exploration of this evidence in this essay.

[35] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref35) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 87

[36] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16#_ftnref36) Ashcraft ‘Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’ 16

[Kléber]

He was a progressive spokesman of the bourgeois class. Revolutionary, sure. Radical might be a bit much. Although the aristocratic absolutists no doubt saw him as such, I think "radical" fits better with some other groups during the English Revolution.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would be very hesitant to call Locke a radical since his views were not all that different than what was being expressed at the time by contemporary thinkers. In fact, outside of a minor discrepancy over what limits could be placed on the state, Locke was in many ways just parroting Hobbes.

At the same time a "reactionary" doesn't make sense because he wasn't arguing in favor of a theocratic justification of feudal relations. I just think he was a normal theorist amongst many similar thinkers who we just know more about due to popularity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I prefer the likes of Rousseau myself. Locke was just another liberal.

[Holden Caulfield]

Liberalism was radical-ish at the time he was writing (before the glorious revolution, the book eas released after it).

He wasn't run of the mill for his time, he was exiled for his views ffs

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Liberalism was radical-ish at the time he was writing (before the glorious revolution, the book eas released after it).

He wasn't run of the mill for his time, he was exiled for his views ffs

His treatment relates to his status in society and in his geographic occupation. Some of the Italian city states were much more tolerant of expressing heterodox viewpoints due to a continuing presence of republican governance. Locke was, (unfortunately?), stunted by the fact he was British and that he wasn't a peasant. There existed much more lenient practices towards the "ignorant masses."

Besides, it's not as if countries have never acted indiscriminately against theorists who weren't progressive.

[mikelepore]

Is it meaningful at all to say whether the thoughts of someone who wrote in the 1600s can be considered radical?

[Holden Caulfield]

Is it meaningful at all to say whether the thoughts of someone who wrote in the 1600s can be considered radical?

I don't think it is for our struggle, but I am under-educated and interested in the subject.

Locke & Shaftesbury were radicals I think, I haven't found any arguments against it really, many half arguments and assertions but nothing to make me change my simple mind

[Drace]

Locke viewed humans to be social creature and thought their behavior is shamed by their environment and advocated the "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"
He opposed the ideas of Thomas Hobbe's which stated that humans are inherently evil and his advocating of absolutism.

I don't know what Locke's specific political views were, but he sure was progressive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Out of the British bourgeois philosophers, I tend to think that Locke is overrated and that the Utilitarian school of thinking is underrated. Similar to how Karl Kautsky came to Marxist politics through Darwin, I came to such from a Utilitarian background that demolished religious morals as my youthful justification for socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Locke actually turned out to be dead and in the coffin all along. Oh wait.... you're talking about that John Locke, not the fictional one from nerdy US tv shows.

Well I have to agree with Mr. Richter... Rousseau was the interesting bourgeois radical. I don't think we can criticize him too much for being "just a liberal" thinker because he really was the first of that kind of enlightenment philosopher... his concepts helped clear the decks for a lot of the ideas that were beginning to gain social currency with middle classes wanting a way to make sense of the new world of business and change while getting rid of the old ideas about hierarchy and predestination and so on.

But on the nerdy US tv show I like Locke a little more than Rousseau, but I was sad when she got killed.

"ffs" = for fuck's sake?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Locke's view that land only belongs to a person if it is "used" was one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Native land in North America. Also, his quote is changed for the Declaration of Independence. It is actually "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." He's a big fan of property rights.

He also introduces a spoilage principle. Basically, I can take as many apples as I want from trees as long as other people still have access to them. If my apples start rotting, I am doing something wrong. This view is incorporated into capitalism where the invention of currency eliminates spoilage. People can get vast resource inequalities because money doesn't "spoil" according to the Lockean line. As long as other people can still work themselves, things are alright. He kind of ignores the whole issue of resource inequality leading to oppression and unjust authorities.

I like a lot of Locke, especially his contributions to empiricism and philosophy of mind. Politically, he was probably left for his time (overall). I wouldn't say he is a radical now, though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Locke's view that land only belongs to a person if it is "used" was one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Native land in North America. Also, his quote is changed for the Declaration of Independence. It is actually "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." He's a big fan of property rights.

Thanks for enlightening me on this. Now I know why right-wing hacks say "life, liberty, and property" instead of the "happiness" word. However, Locke used the word "possessions" and not "property."

[Decolonize The Left]

Let me first state I mean this to be a discussion about his work in their own context.

I once had an msn debate with Kindles on whether Locke was a bourgeois radical, that is to say he was a progressive voice, who aimed salvos at the autocratic feudalist monarchy. However he disagreed, stating that after the glorious revolution the monarchs powers actually increased (I think this was his line of thought, i could be wrong).

Do people think that Locke was a 'radical' in what he said and supported or not?

(I admin my own relative ignorance on this subject, but i'll try to keep up with debate should one break out)

I agree with mikelepore that this discussion is incoherent in many senses, but I also understand where you're coming from. I'll give it my best shot.

General speaking, conventional political theorists like to group Locke together with Hobbes and Rousseau as "social contract" theorists. All three of them contributed greatly to various philosophies and political ideologies. Out of the three, I would consider Rousseau to be the only radical (though not in a contemporary sense).

In a nut shell, a very small nutshell, here's how they play out:
Hobbes - the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short. Humans are greedy, self-interested creatures who want nothing more than to satisfy their needs and desires and further their wills. Life is a state of war and there are no laws. Governments ought to exist to control these innate instincts and those who are more powerful will inevitably assume power - likewise, governments/states generally act as individuals. (Looking back one might liken this thinking to a 'realist', or a neo-conservative).

Locke - the state of nature is joyous. There is food aplenty, land everywhere, and every man can stake his claim to these natural resources, and should he use his human abilities to further himself and his family, then this land and so-forth is his private property. Governments ought to exist to secure this private property and this man's right to continue his quest. (Looking back one might liken this thinking to a classic liberal.)

Rousseau - the state of nature was none of the above. In fact, there most likely is no such thing as human beings are conditioned by the society in which they are raised. Humans naturally formed civil societies (governments and states) in order to further themselves, but they only did so through a 'social contract.' (Looking back, this would appear more radical than the other two)

In short, I do not consider Locke to be a radical. His thinking was paramount at the time and shaped much of the debate over democracy after his works, but he was not radical in the sense that he departed from any undeniable standard.

- August

[blake 3:17]

I hate Locke!

Edited to add: He was the friggin creep who designed the "legal" theft of a pretty huge chunk of the Americas.


Locke's view that land only belongs to a person if it is "used" was one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Native land in North America. Also, his quote is changed for the Declaration of Independence. It is actually "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." He's a big fan of property rights.

This thinking continues to be used by anti-aboriginal creeps. Don't totally maximize exploitation of the land? You don't count.

The irony I find in Locke-type liberals and libertarians is how statist they are. They love police and military forces! Social inequality? Awesome! People just getting by, not bothering anyone or trying to impose rules on them? Awful and uncivilized.

Gimme Hume or Berkeley anyday of the week.

[deLarge]

Couldn't it be possible to interpret his statement on property another way? E.g.: If everything is owned in common until someone puts their labour into a thing, taking it out of a state of nature and making it their own, that would imply that workers own the full product of their labour. And, by extension, that capitalism implies the theft of this property in that the upper classes are appropriating property that they did not create through labour. Also, those natives--being that were already utilizing the land and resources, and changing it through labour--originally held those lands stolen by the Europeans in possession.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah his ideas are reactionary today, however he likely was progressive for his time. The 18th century wasn't exactly a very progressive period.

[Guerrilla22]

Locke does say that if the people are unsatisfied with their government then they have the right to remove it in the Second Treatise of Government. I'd say that was extremely radical for his day. He had to publish it anonymously.

[Hit The North]

I've merged Holden's excellent essay with Holden's OP and deleted the extraneous posts by Holden, Jacob and Dean. Hope you guys don't mind.