John Locke .. who exactly was he?

What did he REALLY stand for?

This topic aims to examine just that!

A few things to ponder ...

The idea of political emancipation that we take for granted was first worked out on the basis of Christianity, by John Locke. Europe had a devastating period of religious wars and England had a couple of revolutions and civil wars and an executed king in the 17th century (beat the French again, this time by over a 100 years).

Locke's arguments were based on Christian doctrines and the use of reason (a divine element in humans). Not surprisingly, his arguments are diametrically opposed to Islamic doctrines on the nature of religion and government. My point is that Locke's (and our) argument for political emancipation and religious tolerance could be made only in a Christian context and a peculiarly English one at that; and cannot be made in other religious contexts to this day unless they share those fundamentally Christian views of the person, of religion and government.

- posted by Soren in here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300371718/75

John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke


Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism


"... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society."

- John Locke

John Locke was also pro slavery .. in fact he was a well known slave owner himself.

He was not a well-known slave owner himself because he owned no slaves. Also, he was not 'pro-slavery'. See
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-204.htm
Locke's ideas are significant in the evolution of western notions of liberty and responsible government.

Soren wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

He was not a well-known slave owner himself because he owned no slaves. Also, he was not 'pro-slavery'. See http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-204.htm Locke's ideas are significant in the evolution of western notions of liberty and responsible government.

Hmm interesting Soren. Now read this:

Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude". Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Hence the title of this topic Soren .. was Locke the Father of Liberalism or Contradiction?

I was considering the word Hypocrisy .. but thought I'd be kind for a change.

Which brings us to this .. If Locke is the FATHER of LIBERALISM ..what does LIBERALISM REALLY mean ?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 3:42pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 22nd, 2011 at 10:46am: He was not a well-known slave owner himself because he owned no slaves. Also, he was not 'pro-slavery'. See http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-204.htm Locke's ideas are significant in the evolution of western notions of liberty and responsible government. Hmm interesting Soren. Now read this: Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude". Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke Hence the title of this topic Soren .. was Locke the Father of Liberalism or Contradiction? I was considering the word Hypocrisy .. but thought I'd be kind for a change.

Well, you can read the man's own words or you can read Wikis.

BTW, Locke was never a secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantation. He was the secretary of Lord Shaftesbury.

It is laughable to to say that the Board of Trade created the colonies or that it supervised them. "The board was, in fact, concerned with a wide range of issues, from the Irish wool trade and the suppression of piracy, to the governance of the colonies and the treatment of the poor in England. During these last eight years of his life, Locke was asthmatic, and he suffered so much from it that he could only bear the smoke of London during the four warmer months of the year. Locke plainly engaged in the activities of the Board out of a strong sense of patriotic duty. After his retirement from the Board of Trade in 1700, Locke remained in retirement at Oates until his death on Sunday 28 October 1704."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#EndLocLif168


Parliament and the various Secretaries of State ran the colonies, especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (which saw Locke return from exile in Holland) when power shifted finally and decisively from the king to Parliament.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 3:49pm:

Which brings us to this .. If Locke is the FATHER of LIBERALISM ..what does LIBERALISM REALLY mean ?

Liberalism
First published Thu Nov 28, 1996; substantive revision Thu Sep 16, 2010
As soon as one examines it, ‘liberalism’ fractures into a variety of types and competing visions. In this entry we focus on debates within the liberal tradition. We begin by (1) examining different interpretations of liberalism's core commitment — liberty. We then consider (2) the longstanding debate between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ liberalism. In section (3) we turn to the more recent controversy about whether liberalism is a ‘comprehensive’ or a ‘political’ doctrine. We close in (4) by considering disagreements as to ‘the reach’ of liberalism — does it apply to all humankind, and must all political communities be liberal?

•1. The Debate About Liberty
◦1.1 The Presumption in Favor of Liberty
◦1.2 Negative Liberty
◦1.3 Positive Liberty
◦1.4 Republican Liberty
•2. The Debate Between the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’
◦2.1 Classical Liberalism
◦2.2 The ‘New Liberalism’
◦2.3 Liberal Theories of Social Justice
•3. The Debate About the Comprehensiveness of Liberalism
◦3.1 Political Liberalism
◦3.2 Liberal Ethics
◦3.3 Liberal Theories of Value
◦3.4 The Metaphysics of Liberalism
•4. The Debate About The Reach of Liberalism
◦4.1 Is Liberalism Justified in All Political Communities?
◦4.2 Is Liberalism a Cosmopolitan or a State-centered Theory?
◦4.3 Liberal Interaction with Non-Liberal Groups: International
◦4.4 Liberal Interaction with Non-Liberal Groups: Domestic
•5. Conclusion
•Bibliography
•Other Internet Resources
•Related Entries

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Lisa, you should keep out of these debates until you grow a mind of your own.
Just trying to be helpful OK?

Ahh Soren my learned friend ... you have given me much homework I see. Good .. I like being challenged. Now let me read it all.

Amadd .. run along .. adults are trying to have a discussion here.

I shall return soon Soren .. if only to prove to you that I am indeed worthy of YOUR intellectual challenge lol :)

Quote:

Amadd .. run along .. adults are trying to have a discussion here.

Yes Lisa, God (My God...not the one who writes books) has provided me with two ears and only one mouth so that I may
hear more clearly.

In this instance (a chat room), I am gifted with two eyes and also two hands. Therefore, I am on equal footing to voice opinion.

Even so, I benevolently tie my hands, eagerly awaiting thy wise words of the said adult.


...tap tap tap..  ::)


Three days have almost since passed. Resurrection must surely be nigh.



The voice of truth shall rise into the sky; the said adult provides nothing other than certification upon thyself that to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Tread carefully upon the ductile ground of truth, for here there be tigers. ...In other words, you don't want to be coming here void of soul hun.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 11:09am:

I shall return soon Soren .. if only to prove to you that I am indeed worthy of YOUR intellectual challenge lol :)

I wonder what Lisa's definition of 'soon' would be? Hmmmm....  :-?

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 3:23am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 11:09am: I shall return soon Soren .. if only to prove to you that I am indeed worthy of YOUR intellectual challenge lol :) I wonder what Lisa's definition of 'soon' would be? Hmmmm....  :-?

seems "soon" ="never" or pretend i forgot/was on the phone/was facebooking/was scratching my stuff ...whoops:-X

S.hit .. you're fracking following me all over cyberspace you multi freak troll!

Frack off!

Amadd wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 11:14pm:

Quote: Amadd .. run along .. adults are trying to have a discussion here. Yes Lisa, God (My God...not the one who writes books) has provided me with two ears and only one mouth so that I may hear more clearly. In this instance (a chat room), I am gifted with two eyes and also two hands. Therefore, I am on equal footing to voice opinion. Even so, I benevolently tie my hands, eagerly awaiting thy wise words of the said adult. ...tap tap tap..  ::) Three days have almost since passed. Resurrection must surely be nigh. The voice of truth shall rise into the sky; the said adult provides nothing other than certification upon thyself that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Tread carefully upon the ductile ground of truth, for here there be tigers. ...In other words, you don't want to be coming here void of soul hun.

Amadd .. you know damn well why I've not returned in here.

And many thanks for respecting my wishes and NOT sending me any more of your silly PM's. They were beginning to scare me actually.