If We Lose John Locke, We Lose America

[Chris]

Is Locke's argument true? If not, why not?

From the video, Locke's argument;

[Mister D]

Premise #1 could only be true in a political sense. All men have equal political rights. Premise #2 doesn't make any sense.

[Chris]

Premise #1 could only be true in a political sense. All men have equal political rights. Premise #2 doesn't make any sense.

I'm still thinking how Manent, Natural Law and Humans Rights, says, these modern theories narrow down all dispositions of what man as individual is to a single disposition or attribute. The first step in such abstraction seems to be all men are equal, or, iow, each individual represents all men. Manent uses Hobbes as an example and says Hobbes narrowed man's defining attribute down to a desire for power. Locke, whose [i[Treatises[/i] criticise Hobbe's Leviathon, seem to narrow it down to rights. All three, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke concluded by justifying the state as a social contract.

Premise #2 doesn't make any sense.

Depends on how you define rights.

[MisterVeritis]

Premise #1 could only be true in a political sense. All men have equal political rights. Premise #2 doesn't make any sense.

I have an individual right to life, liberty, and property independent from the government. Any government incapable or unwilling to support and protect my rights is illegitimate and unjust. Because we are created equal every person has the same individual rights.

[Mister D]

I have an individual right to life, liberty, and property independent from the government. Any government incapable or unwilling to support and protect my rights is illegitimate and unjust. Because we are created equal every person has the same individual rights.

Then I suggest you reconsider that whole "there is no God or gods" thing.

[Mister D]

I'm still thinking how Manent, Natural Law and Humans Rights, says, these modern theories narrow down all dispositions of what man as individual is to a single disposition or attribute. The first step in such abstraction seems to be all men are equal, or, iow, each individual represents all men. Manent uses Hobbes as an example and says Hobbes narrowed man's defining attribute down to a desire for power. Locke, whose [i[Treatises[/i] criticise Hobbe's Leviathon, seem to narrow it down to rights. All three, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke concluded by justifying the state as a social contract.




Depends on how you define rights.

Outside a theistic (indeed, Christian) frame of reference, I don't understand what it means for all men to be created equal. I'm still sympathetic to Catholicism but I moved away from abstract men and their abstract rights.

[Chris]

Outside a theistic (indeed, Christian) frame of reference, I don't understand what it means for all men to be created equal. I'm still sympathetic to Catholicism but I moved away from abstract men and their abstract rights.

Yes, I think it's derived from the Christian view all men are created equal before God. Judaic too in that under that view Kings were held subject to the law like anyone else. Up until moderns times in the West I believe that was generally held to be true.

Locke was Chrisitan but I thnk he lumped Catholics pretty much with atheists.

By the time of Jefferson, however, that view had been secularized.

[Mister D]

Yes, I think it's derived from the Christian view all men are created equal before God. Judaic too in that under that view Kings were held subject to the law like anyone else. Up until moderns times in the West I believe that was generally held to be true.

Locke was Chrisitan but I thnk he lumped Catholics pretty much with atheists.

By the time of Jefferson, however, that view had been secularized.

It has been completely secularized but that's secondary to me. As a traditionalist, I have to come to believe it causes more harm than good.

Locke was an apologist for the new economic and political order in England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution. He did the bidding of his Whig benefactors in developing a theological and philosophical justification for the transformation of English social and economic relationships over the course of the previous century (16th). As far as ethics go, one might say he was more of a Jew than a Christian.

[midcan5]

All men are not created equal that seems pretty obvious. Rights only exist if defined, lots of stuff can exist separate from government, that comment has no meaning as it has no grounding. So now governments exists to protect rights that don't have substance. What a bunch of hooey. Simple concepts sound nice for a five year but come on guys. For the thoughtful I offer the author below. Enjoy.


'The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility'

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

[Mister D]

All men are not created equal that seems pretty obvious. Rights only exist if defined, lots of stuff can exist separate from government, that comment has no meaning as it has no grounding. So now governments exists to protect rights that don't have substance. What a bunch of hooey. Simple concepts sound nice for a five year but come on guys. For the thoughtful I offer the author below. Enjoy.


'The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility'

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

Speaking of unthoughtful, progressives tend to engage in truly mindless hypocrisy when it comes to this topic. I'd elaborate but midcan is too cowardly to engage.

What this has to be with "whiteness" is anyone's guess but who cares.