Distrusting John Locke (Why Locke was no conservative)

And Monarchy is no better than Socialism.

This has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've seen on FR.

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous comebacks I have ever seen anywhere. At least try..., try to have something substantive to put fourth in response. You need to avoid insulting others, it does nothing for your argument. Why is Monarchy any better than socialism? Both essentially are class based systems that violate people's civil liberties.

I have been delaying any further contribution to this thread until I have finished reading all of the references offered in the various posts, specifically I am working my way through the links in post #35.

I love stuff like this, Locke is a particular interest of mine, and there are some folks posting here who are worth reading.

Still, going back to the original article that started this thread, the Gottfried article seems to be nothing more than a hit piece. He accuses Locke of not being a conservative, which is a given, and accuses him of favoring "life, liberty, and property" and democracy. Dang.

While there is certainly always going to be tension between democracy and liberty, since one is a means and one is an end, even granting that liberty as an end can be a means to a yet more profound end, still my question remains. While attacking Locke, Gottfried has not stated what his case is. If he attacks Locke's belief in individual liberty, what does he propose? Or if he is attacking his belief in the sanctity of property, what would be better? Or if Locke's support of property is not unqualified enough, what would resolve this weakness in his argument?

If Locke's proposal of Democracy as a means of promoting the greatest good is ill-founded, what would be better? Gottfried does not reveal himself, preferring to attack Locke for things he did not believe, laying Orwell's thought police at his feet.

Curious, also, is the reference to Hume, and limited Monarchy. Is Gottfried proposing such a thing? If so, then why not simply say so, so we can get on with it? He quotes Hume thus: "Hume asked, why did individuals throughout the world live “in subordination to each other” without a sense of being deprived of rights? " without challenging Hume's assertion. Who says individuals living throughout the world are not conscious of living in oppression? Perhaps Hume, from his perspective could say such a thing, but I can't imagine any serious commentator saying such a thing today. But if that is Gottfried's case, then why not simply say so?

My suspicion is that he knows that if he openly declares his support for such a thing, most of his audience would simply tune him out. It seems Locke, and the Lockeans, are much more durable than the monarchists. But if we are going back to limited monarchy, I want to get my application in early. I'm there. When I'm the boss, there are going to be some changes around here.

Meanwhile, you guys just carry on, I still have a lot of reading to do, thanks guys.

Why is Monarchy any better than socialism? Both essentially are class based systems that violate people's civil liberties.

Your statement betrays a profound ignorance of history, and I haven't the time to be your teacher. Good day.

nothing more than a hit piece

Well . . . . There is a legitimate critique here that one must consider even if Locke is not guilty. Neither Voegelin's or Gottfried's criticisms are ad hominem. The argument here (and from others Willmoore Kendall, McIntyre) is that “Rights” mean what the majority takes to be. That is a danger whether or not Locke is liable.

If Locke is found safe, the critique still stands for anyone headed in that direction. One could even learn why Nietzsche criticized modernity and learn of the same danger; or Levinas; or Dooyeweerd; or Gilson; or Maritain; or Plato.

Once that danger is understood, Locke himself assumes a secondary role along with all that is cherisable.

If I understand Voegelin's criticism, it is that Locke uses the language but has changed the meaning. Nature is no longer what nature was. This means that the criticism of Locke can only be understood with a background in Ancient and Medieval philosophy.

One can argue that Locke represents a wrong turn, but one can't put the spilt milk back in the bottle (sorry about the mixed metaphor). It's quite possible to criticize Locke on the basis of older ideas of legitimacy, but hard to restore those older ideas to the power they once had. It's also certainly possible to speculate about whether Locke's ideas were necessary to dethrone absolutism or whether older conceptions of natural law would have served the same function and perhaps have done so better than Locke's ideas.

Locke looks a bit like a mutation of conservative anti-absolutist ideas into a form that could eventually demand and justify individualist democracy. Perhaps an unmutated form of legitimist, anti-absolutist thought could have served us better. But the Rubicon has been crossed. One certainly can't uproot Locke from the American or modern Western mind or undo the distrust of governments, rulers and hierarchies and the resistance to them.

What "the governed" wanted was not so much a sophisticated theory of rights and mutual obligations, but a source of slogans and claims that could be pitted against the power of their governors. That yesterday's governed become today's governing elite to be cast aside by others is one of the inevitable, though unforseen results of the theory.

Gottfried himself shares the truculent, "don't tread on me" spirit of today's average American, so perhaps he doesn't recognize his own character or ancestry. Maybe this is the paleo dilemma: they rely on pre-Lockean ideas to defend some unruly and tradition-based Celtic community against centralized states, unaware that those pre-Lockean ideas were as apt to be used against the intransigent Celts as against their oppressors.

Traditional monarchy may look good in comparison to contemporary democracy, but monarchs and royalists didn't lack the ability and willingness to oppress and exploit. England may have needed a restoration of older concepts of natural law, but what they got was Locke. France, Spain and Germany, which had no Locke, probaby ended up worse off than England.

You can also check out the original thread on this article or the Chronicles symposium that the was originally published in. While the question of Locke is of extreme importance in its own right, I can't resist a sneaking suspicion that for Donald Livingston Locke=Lincoln and Hume=Calhoun.

It is my distinct pleasure to as you put it, "betray a profound ignorance of history". I think you may have been accusing me of portraying or illustrating a profound ignorance of history, however I assure you I'm in no need of indoctrination by monarchists. You sir are ignoring a profound lesson of history, if you do not see the common tyranny of Monarchy and Socialism. As marron so eloquently put it, Gottfried does not indicate an alternative to Locke's beliefs and merely gives some diffuse reference to Hume and thus the implication of a limited monarchy inevitably arises from this. Nonetheless I appreciate that your last reply was more civil than your first and I too wish you a good day.

Locke looks a bit like a mutation of conservative anti-absolutist ideas into a form that could eventually demand and justify individualist democracy. Perhaps an unmutated form of legitimist, anti-absolutist thought could have served us better. But the Rubicon has been crossed. One certainly can't uproot Locke from the American or modern Western mind or undo the distrust of governments, rulers and hierarchies and the resistance to them.

What "the governed" wanted was not so much a sophisticated theory of rights and mutual obligations, but a source of slogans and claims that could be pitted against the power of their governors. That yesterday's governed become today's governing elite to be cast aside by others is one of the inevitable, though unforseen results of the theory.

One of the reasons I enjoy your posts is insightful paragraphs such as these. The desire for "slogans" and neat little logical systems to enter the public rhealm with on a daily basis never leaves some people today as well.

General distrust of philosophers' systems for practical matters is one of the halmarks of many conservatives, despite an appreciation for a life-of-the-mind. I must confess myself amongst that former category despite my interest in those topics and many posters that are obviously in those later ranks.