John Locke's Political Philosophy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- After briefly discussing Thomas Hobbes, Professor Charles Anderson discusses the thought of John Locke. This comes from a course on Political, Economic, & Social Thought given at the University of Wisconsin many years ago.
00:00 Thomas Hobbes
21:50 John Locke
#philosophy #locke #politicalphilosophy
Locke is amazing. I look forward to prioritizing studying him deeply, all aspects of his philosophy, at some point in the future.
That’s a shame RUclips took down your channel. This RUclips channel has changed my life thank you for sharing over the years!!
What happened to his channel? Was it deleted?
The depravity of American capitalism……… that’s what happened…….. miss jenny
@@jennyhirschowitz1999 - Hi, care to explain? That is messed up taking down a philosophy RUclips channel, I’m interested to know what you mean exactly
@@johnnyroycerichardsoniii3273 I assume that it was a copyright issue
Hear!!
Really really enjoyed this. None of this ever came up in my civics class at university.
Thank you for sharing. This was very imformative.
Great lecture. I'm glad that your channel is back!
A wonderful channel! Thanks for uploaded!
Do you realize that the “science” Hobbes relied upon was pre-enlightenment science? Hobbes “state of nature” never existed in the human population. Home sapiens evolved from apes who all and always lived in structured communities; and during the evolution of our species, we became more and more social. Humans never lived as solitary creatures.
@@TheMargarita1948👎👎👎
T'anks for the ride with that train of thought. I crystallized a lot of stuff I already knew.
Awesome, thank you. 🙏 Dare I ask after the Hobbes lecture?!
Too true
I,as an amateur,wanted to know what Locke's ideas are.I only knew him through quotes of him.This was certainly a good introduction...and he gave Hobbes value,in a way.I read and disgarded him.08.44 u
Can you upload all of Pro Anderson's lecture series?
I think this is from 1985, not 2009.
Very glad you back again, every night before sleep i search your channel to think and it's amazing, thank you!!
Could you upload in parallel in a channel app like telegram?
Thank you a lot!
This was a most interesting introduction to the ideas of John Lock. Because it sought to place Locke within the broad genealogy of political ideas as they evolved from the earlier times of Aristotle and Hobbes before, as well as those who followed later, Hegel and Marx. It illustrated the evolution of of political ideas shaped by the diversities of the particular context. Consequently, the reimagination of the ideals that those specific historical contexts produced. This allows for the recognition of the shared intellectual strands that may run across the different times and spaces. By the same token it can also recognise the divergent strands of ideas and ideals. That is exactly how evolution works through nature, without any real capacity to predict the future course of evolution!
Realisation of the significance of the interplay between political idea and the ideals as they evolved and develop may be quite critical. This may help prevent the creation of ideological silos that politics has been reduced to today. Locke and Marx are typically shown as ideologically opposite political camps, Locke on the side of liberal democracy and economic capitalism, and Marx on the side of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism!
Such ideological compartmentalisation makes little difference to either Locke or Marx, or any other who had played significant roles in their own time. But this kind of ideological divide breeds the politics of identity, of "us versus them". This is how the ideal of politics, as an exploration of ways of negotiations to reconcile the differences within society, is increasingly becoming a platform to leverage those differences in the garb of ideology, denying the political legitimacy of those who deviate, differ or dissent. This is the politics of polarisation that is reducing politics to mere drive for power, and the legal institutions of the state as mere instruments in the hands of those who lay access political power.
Thank you for sharing such lectures.
brilliantly written
I did like the lecture. I would definitely support Locke over Hobbes and even Rosseau.
On the right to own property, every property has been appropriated at the expense of the public interest. On the right to pursue happiness, the Greek challenge of “what is a good life,” assuming goodness and happiness go hand in hand, is left untouched.
This is a sincere question. How have you arrived at the proposition that all property is appropriated at the expense of the public interest? If that proposition is True, what are the implications?
Good job five stars
Pro Anderson's lectures are way better than some IVY League's ones
Please upload the lectures on Jean Jacques Rousseau, too. Prof. Anderson's analysis is exceptional and contributes to a deeper understanding of Rousseau's ideas.
Rousseau was wrong.
Omg. They took down your channel and now it plays slides from Wikipedia!? 🤮
So profound! The scientific base of politic theory.
Hey! Glad to see you back. Is there any way to find you online incase this channel implodes again? Have you thought about that? Maybe a way to support your work too?
I just have a Facebook page.
@@Philosophy_Overdose I know, I saw it, but I don’t use FB and I don’t think it’s very reliable either 😃
@@PalmaPalmowa what do u want him to do about it
Amazingly lecture, Watched all of it 1:34:04
Recording playback speed is out of sync
I wonder what Locke would have made of contemporary US?
Garbage.
Sir, I have enjoyed everything up to your statement that the Declaration of Independence says that citizens are endowed with rights by "nature." You might want to re-read said document.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all man are ‘created’ equal; that they are endowed by creator, certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
So says your Declaration of Independence, in a complete Lockean jargon.
That's wrong. It says exactly that. Natural law is derived from nature:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature
The problem is urban society. That is where natural law breaks down. Natural law cannot function with living conditions and technologies that exceed bounds of sustainable nature. The answer is that industry must be confined to govt (military) lands, and all other land ought to be agricultural with enough resources per parcel to support a small family. Natural law and positive law, free people and corporate people, are distinct domains and separate jurisdictions that ought to exist in a balance. Food + natural medicine production belong to free people, industry+defense+mining+drilling+forestry (perhaps grains+fiber too) etc, belong to systems of men. And they ought to mutually prosper+limit each other via mutual dependency. Our economy should be: how many apples does a box of lye cost? How many potatoes for a block of iron to make shovels or ploughs? How many onions for some 2x4s and plywood? Jefferson said we give up no natural rights to govt because Locke says that is where the camel's nose comes under the tent leading to tyranny. Every video on RUclips seems to be propaganda hit piece on the foundations of the USA via distortions+misunderstandings. Locke specifically states that once man gives up natural rights to a govt, he is doomed to tyranny. And every so called expert on Locke hides this. The speaker is totally clueless on capitalism, which he says Locke was the father of. But the word didn't even exist until nearly 1900. Capitalism is a free market rooted in usury+corporations, which is an offense under natural law.
I miss college.
Keep soaring👍💪
His principal about waste with private property would never happen lol. That would be a loosing prospect for anyone with items to sell. Idk anyone who would do that let crops rot or the federal government to sieze lands to let them catch fire. Lol like California 👍
What happened to this channel? Was it deleted by youtube previosuly and is back?
yes
Hobbs was a neo platonic thinker.
39:10
14 minutes in, but just making a note here so I don’t forget:
How did Hobbes propose that we come up with the right laws for governing people? Suppose that one tyrant makes rules that plunge the world into chaos, and everyone must follow… this is not much better than anarchy. Surely there has to be a collective will to good that we agree upon at the outset which will determine our actions later.
Playing devil’s advocate, a puzzling thing is, if we cannot trust the majority, since it can enslave the minority, and we cannot trust the individual, since he is selfish, then how are we to trust either a collective OR a single ruler to come up with laws? Especially since a collective is simply made up of individuals who may be selfish. It sounds like it’s impossible to find a trustworthy agent in any of these cases.
I lol'd at the student asking about the WEF version of "moral capitalism"...or communism. No, that's more in line with hobbes' leviathan.
I like bringing up social security and abortion both not admendend to the constitution so the federal government has no authority to even legislate laws for it.
Oops. Normal thoughts for anyone who is aware and breathing.
Marx missed the rise of the middle class under capitalism--Anderson seems to miss or ignore this.
Marxists still deny there is any such thing as a middle class
Capitalism is usury is garbage is a freedom killer. It is a weapon used to centralize all the wealth of a land into the hands of a few.
Most people want to say free market under common law, but say: capitalism. Which wasn't even a word until the late 1800s. It is money making money.
I'm not sure about something near the end of this lecture: that majority rule is alone consistent with the premise that each individual is... Sure, it isn't a minority exhibiting tyranny, for it is a majority; majority being such that it could be nearly half the population. Whether we're talking about unanimity, minority, a dictator, or whatever-rule, INCLUDING majority-rule, we are talking about unfairness in violation of the spirit of this view. If Locke indeed supported majority-rule as he tried to reify the spirit, it was I submit in error. This is why the Bill of Rights exist in the U.S. constitution. Without it, the spirit cannot be reified satisfactorily. All of those rules are unacceptable and are not in keeping with the spirit. You must have a set of rules or rights that are beyond the reach of all possible tyrannies. So I disagree with the inference made here in this lecture. And Locke if it was Locke's inference. Herein is the difference between a democracy and a republic. Those terms are not to be used interchangeably and a great deal of confusion and vexation flows from the common mistake.
You don't understand the 4 organic laws for the USA.
@@chadkline4268 educate me if you'd like. I am not familiar with them. Thank you.
@@DKPSKs OK, thank you for your replies, and I hope mine will be equally considerate.
If U.S. stands for the United States, and that is the name of a federal republic, then what is the U.S.A. or The United States of America? When I was younger, various products would always be stamped Made in the U.S.A. They never said Made in the U.S. until we went off the gold standard. The Articles declare:
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
So, obviously, The U.S. of A. is not the U.S., and obviously, the United States is an entity that is expressly delegated limited power+jurisdiction by the states (geographical areas on a map), which retain their sovereignty. Therefore, the United States is NOT states. It is 50 States (seats of govt) and other federal States and territories to be managed on behalf of The U.S. of A. At the time, this would have been the Northwest Territory States. The Articles of Confederation were never repealed, required all states to agree to them, are perpetual, and cannot be changed except by:
Article XIII.
... And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
That never happened. All states would have to agree to change the Articles, and all state legislatures would have to agree, and whatever changes were made would require repealing and re-ratifying, as was similarly done with the Northwest Territorial Ordinance:
Art 6:
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void.
Nobody has authority to merely imagine the Articles of Confederation out of existence. Furthermore, they wouldn't be codified in the current form in USC 1 if they were not law. They are codified and are law and any law that follows them must necessarily be inferior to them, and not superior. Law can never violate law that precedes it.
When the king was defeated, his sovereignty in the colonies didn't devolve upon a govt, it devolved upon all Americans equally.
Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
Chief Justice John Jay, president, 2nd governor of New York, author of the Jay Treaty, signator to the Treaty of Paris along with Jefferson, author of Federalist Papers:
The same feudal ideas run through all their (Europe) jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official [officers, offices, may not be employees, see Black's Law 4th Ed, 1971]; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.
Americans are the sovereigns. The Declaration of Independence declares the laws of nature to be the law. And they weren't repealed either. And along with the Articles, required ALL states to agree upon. And the Constitution, which nobody takes a valid oath that binds them to it as an authority, is not superior to the 1st 2 organic laws. It was written along with the Northwest Territorial Ordinance in 1787 by the Continental Congress and later ratified in 1789 by the United States Congress as federal law for federal territory with 3/4 votes of Congress (a requirement of Art X of the AoC). They have no authority beyond their land. The states are sovereign, and Americans are sovereign. The federal government has no authority beyond its expressly delegated limited powers and Art 1 Sec 8 duties. The Constitution is 99% a transcription of the duties prescribed in the Articles, with enough obfuscation so as to confuse most people., which is why the convention was held in secret and nearly half the delegates refused to sign it. It was an attempt to acquire power via deception over an uninformed people that had just liberated themselves from a ruler.
Article. I.
Section. 3.
... in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office ...
The president of the United States and the president of the United States of America are 2 different offices with different duties. No
authority exists or was provided to say they are the same. The United States and The United States of America are clearly different entities as previously established, so they cannot be the same presidents. It would appear that the president of the U.S.A. is a head of state and the president of the U.S. simply presides over Congress in their duties cited in Art 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution, whichever one we're talking about. In any case, it is invalid to declare them to be the same in law. A personal declaration contrary to rules of interpretation does not make fact or law. Generally, law does not allow for synonyms. I can't even readily think of a single instance. Terms of law have specific meanings.
Office of President
Office of President of the United States
Office of President of the United States of America
... are 3 separate offices. These are terms of law, not words out of a comic book. Mars and Venus are not the same due to a personal declaration. A personal declaration does not make them the same. Their duties differ, their oaths differ, their requirements differ, and the terms differ.
I didn't make a subjective claim that presidents violate their oaths. I said that their oaths are falsified and are not the prescribed oaths. All oaths in the entire nation are falsified, and therefore there are no legitimate officers in the nation. They are all imposters, unaccountable to Americans, unaccountable to the Constitution.
Yes, concerning impeachment. People generally think impeachment is meaningful, but it is just a charge. They must be tried and convicted after an impeachment.
The Chief Justice is NOT given any duty whatsoever by the Constitution except in Art 1 Sec 3: When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside ... Nowhere does the Constitution provide for any justice on a supreme Court. And a supreme Court is not a Supreme Court. We're reading law here, not comics. There is what the Constitution says, and then what actually is in place. And they are not the same. And there is no law against violating the Constitution, because nobody is bound to it.
Preamble
... do ordain and establish this Constitution ...
[this Constitution]
Art 1 Sec 8
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
[this Constitution, and it only allows the authority to carry out Art 1 Sec 8 duties]
Art 2 Sec 1
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
[Constitution of the United States, not this Constitution, some other Constitution, these are terms of law, not comic balloons, and furthermore, no President takes this oath]
Art 4 Sec 3
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
[this Constitution, Congress only has authority over United States (federal) property and territory]
Art 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...
[this Constitution, supreme Law of federal land, which includes States (seats of govt) within states (50 geographical regions on a map)]
Art 7
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
[this Constitution]
@@DKPSKs
Alice in Wonderland
Alice's Wonderland
In Alice's Wonderland
Frogs
Green Frogs
U.S. Frogs
Frogs in the U.S.
U.S.A. Frogs
These are all different books.
The average American cannot understand this. Only those educated in law can understand.
@@chadkline4268 this is excellent, I'm going to require a couple of days to re-read this over, take notes, and process it. I may have questions, thank you so much.
40:00
🤓
Locke drastically overestimated humanity and it’s capacity to lack any real rational thought
Well Marx was worse in that point
@@linusschmutz3985cope
It isn't necessary in a state of freedom.
@@chadkline4268 freedom is illusory
@@SI-qp7cm because people lack any real rational thought 😆
Like the ending of this discussion. See how other countries have faired with any other ideals. Lol see who has the currency accepted throughout the world as of now lol. This country is so privileged on the values and constitution we are built from. It will soon be gone.
Sounds nonsensical to me if you do what you feel like you would end up in a terrible condition mentality how come any group of skilled individuals do things they don't want to do is to grow