John Locke's Political Philosophy

John Locke's Political Philosophy

13 thoughts on “John Locke's Political Philosophy

  1. This is BY FAR the best lecture I've heard about Locke and Hobbes. EXCELLENT. Wierd that it's so hard to find on youtube

  2. We seem to believe we can always do better than Nature. One good assay of the condition of the world with most of the business, land, and wealth LOCKed up in the Vatican's Bank owned by the Rothschild, his tribe and many other elites. All this is under LOCK and key as perhaps was the intent from the beginning with a Machiavellian pragmatic philosophy that would further serve the 1% elite. I know if my intent was to own and control the world's resources I would love John Locke, Nicole Machiavelli and the Jesuit Military for my intel and protection.

  3. This is my first Serious foray into Locke's Political Philosophy and I am damned glad I chose this video. Very enlightening and a solid foundation for deeper research. Thank you for the upload.

  4. Conservative interpretation of Locke is just more natural. You can in theory make Locke works for your leftist case, but not before you go through significant amount of mental gymnastics and sophistry.

  5. The only reason England was able to promote this delusion of stability was their ability to manipulate others like everything else with disastrous blow back. A philosophy which has inspired the Americans to their delusion to its equal repercussion. Thank goodness their defense budget is what is it.

    It was Henry Cromwell's inability to govern both parliament and the military which allowed Charles II to return to power. That ability to return was the result of a Scotsman, one of Cromwell's own general, who wanted stability. When Charles II returned to power one of the first thing he did was to exhume and hang the skeleton remain of Oliver Cromwell. As he saw this regicide unfathomable. But, when parliament did the same thing it was glorious. The Papist event which rocked England in this era, saw many parliamentarians calling out people as Catholics which usually saw them imprisoned or worst killed. A vital legal platform came as a the result. James II was already hated and feared for being a Catholic long before his reign. It was the fact that James was attempting a return to absolutism, which feared parliament the worst. While Louise XIV was bribing Charles who was proroguing Parliament whenever he saw fit by divine right. William was bribing parliament. If Charles II had the mind of William. Instead of using that money on himself, he could have bought parliament and the Stuart would have remained in power. Since men are governed by their vices than their virtues. England remained a monarchy, because titles mean everything even above their religion which England was under Cromwell Puritan government.

  6. Thank you for clearing up John Locke's principals. I have heard them referenced but, never articulated. I found this very enlightening.

  7. Enjoy the series and the lecture. My contention is that the notion of good and bad as associated with pleasure and pain in NOT axiomatic or uncontroversial at all. What if one finds pleasure in enslaving people in the sex trade? If we find enough people to adopt this view then we can count noses and it becomes the good. Much the way getting rid of the news in Nazi Germany became "the good."

    America wasn't founded by people looking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Christianity spread on the bodies of martyrs. There is very little outside of the epicureans to support this view. So where this professor opines that this Hobbesian maxim is incontrovertible seems more rhetorical flourish than an abductive inference from the data of history.

  8. It sounds so good, so where did it all go wrong ? Perhaps it was in their definition of the ‘state of nature’ , where we are naturally self interested individuals that want our private property rights protected. Most tribes, or people living closer to nature, held property, if you can call it that, in commune. For example, a lot of American Indian property rights were not acknowledged by the incomers, because they didn’t own the land individually, but as a group. Or the Australian Aboriginals believed the land owned them and that they were part of it. The universal statement about ‘the state of nature’ , the assumption that every individual has a basic desire structure, didn’t take into account differences that occurred in reality, which led to a lot of unfair treatment of people’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *