Who is John Locke?

[low preference guy]

Locke refutes the divine right of kings and sets forth the nature of legitimate civil government, based on (what was at the time) the radical idea of natural rights and the social compact. It was the revolutionary ideas of natural rights and government limited to the occupation of securing those rights that influenced America’s founding fathers. Locke is quoted and paraphrased throughout much of America’s founding documents.

Between Karl Marx and John Locke, who is more important to our national political identity? So why are our children hanging posters of Marx on their classroom walls instead of Locke? I am not claiming that there is a Marxist conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. However, I do know that if we continue to neglect educating our children about the men on whose ideas this nation was built, this nation will not stand. The borders may remain the same, but the character of this nation will be lost forever.

Without the foundation of Locke, do American children have the philosophical foundation necessary to understand what is truly evil about Stalin and Marx and conversely, what is good and unique about America? I am concerned when young students can’t identify the source of the ideas upon which their nation was founded, but can easily identify men whose political beliefs are in direct opposition to those ideas.

Read the rest.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Locke's theory of value was wrong, but he had some good ideas too.

 

[Che]

the guy wants a john locke photo in classrooms, so... let him have it, why not!?! I'm confused

 

[surf]

So why are our children hanging posters of Marx on their classroom walls instead of Locke?

children are hanging posters of Karl Marx on their classroom walls? i have a tough time believing this.

edit: read the article and i still have a tough time believing it.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

the guy wants a john locke photo in classrooms, so... let him have it, why not!?! I'm confused

Ahhh you beat me to it!

 

[Promontorium]

Just about finishing a philosophy class, took a political theory class a year ago, so I ended up studying Plato, Locke, and Hobbes twice.

Locke and Hobbes are usually compared/contrasted because they were both British, wrote about the same era and used similar methods to come to similar conclusions. Both were directly quoted or paraphrased in founding documents like the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Locke had a positive view of individuals. His idea of the "state of nature" (essentially anarchy) was generally positive. Hobbes argued the state of nature is perpetual war. However both believed a strong ruling authority was ultimately better.

Locke's "Second Treatise" was a propaganda piece to justify the British people's overthrow of King James II. It was quoted directly in the Declaration of Independence to justify America's overthrow of British rule.

He is also one who argued "natural rights" stemmed from the "laws of nature", that no one may harm another, individuals have a right to their property etc.

 

[libertybrewcity]

the guy wants a john locke photo in classrooms, so... let him have it, why not!?! I'm confused

i was thinking this before i clicked on the thread

 

[low preference guy]

what the fuck are you guys doing. this is the picture.

 

[kahless]

the guy wants a john locke photo in classrooms, so... let him have it, why not!?! I'm confused

^How do I know for sure that is John Locke and not the one that turns into this?

 

[fisharmor]

what the fuck are you guys doing. this is the picture.

No kidding. Jokes are jokes, but the biggest joke of all was how blatantly they told us that we had just wasted six years of our lives.
I'd rather leave the joke behind at this point and learn something else about the real one.

 

[TNforPaul45]

^How do I know for sure that is John Locke and not the one that turns into this?

Flocke > Locke

 

[LibertyWorker]

The Right of Revolution as an individual or collective right

Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory. As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....”Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”

The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

LINK: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Read the rest.

Our Founding Fathers did not refute the devine rights of kings or the king. What they did was establish by natural law that the self evident and unalienable Truth reduces to be perceived within the same equal Soul in every human being. As the king did not perceive this Truth, our Founders found justification in declaring him a tyrant and then divorcing the people out from under his rightful rule.
Though they didn't have to, our Founders included the list of excuses as to why they thought the king behaved as a tyrant. One suggested he was immature.
The significance of our Founders signing their signatures is it holds them accountable under God's judgement.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Right of Revolution as an individual or collective right

Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory. As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....”Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”

The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

LINK: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Think of it in this way. According to the declaration of our Founders, the Soul of his majesty the king sitting on his throne and the Soul of the worthless prostitute trespassing within his territory are equal as they were both born with the same exact business agenda for life.
As prostitutes age and become uncomely, they will come to that eventual period in their lives when their masters will require them to kneel in order to make a living or they will find the courage to stand and walk in faith away from him.
This is the reason for revolution.