John Locke's Political Philosophy

"Social justice progressives are fulfilling, not betraying, the ideals of their Enlightenment forebears." In this essay, contra Jordan Peterson, I explain the philosophical roots of "social justice progressivism" as being perfectly aligned with "classical liberal" philosophical assumptions and presumptions. Examining, briefly and concisely, Hobbes, Locke, Hutcheson, Smith, Mill, Popper, and Rawls, I highlight how the fundamental thesis of liberalism is "freedom from harm."

Perhaps the strongest attempts to derive support for basic income policy from Locke’s thought hinge on Locke's view that the world and its resources were originally owned in common by all persons. This world ownership, many have supposed, gives all persons a natural right to equal shares of resources and thus a right to an equal basic income under conditions (like our own) in which nearly all resources have been appropriated. I argue that this reasoning betrays a misunderstanding of Locke's conception of original world ownership and that once this understanding is corrected, it becomes clear that there is no natural right to equal shares of resources, although there is a natural right to sufficient shares. Consequently, although governments must guarantee sufficiency for their citizens, there is no Lockean reason why this guarantee must take the form of a basic income, or scheme of equal and unconditional payments.

The sense of religious education under discussion in this chapter will be the formative influence of children, with respect to religions. Such influence could be anti-religious, pro-religious, or neutral about the value of religion. What I will call ‘the Basic Question’ asks ‘how ought children to be influenced with respect to religions?’ In this chapter we will assess a range of forms that question can take in different kinds of societies. We will distinguish and explore questions regarding the moral permissibility and desirability, and the legal permissibility, of various answers to the Basic Question. First however, we will consider some rival answers and approaches to the question of what counts as a religion.

This work is Chapter 11 in the John M. Meyer and Jens M. Kersten edited volume "The Greening of Everyday Life" (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp.183-97. It builds in part upon my earlier work "Plumwood, Property, Selfhood and Sustainability" in trying to tease out the elements that are valuable in the Lockean tradition of property theory, which I identify with the idea of belonging, and distinguish these from and contrast them with the reductive and instrumentalizing aspects of that tradition, which I associate with notions of possession and the dynamics of self-validating reduction. I suggest that the predominance of the latter dynamics in modern Western lives creates what I call a "tragedy of the uncommon", in which healthy and fulfilling bonds of social belonging, experiential connection to the earth and to food production are steadily rendered distant and opaque. Against these tendencies, I set the transformative social potential of contemporary experiences of community gardens.

The article examines whether realist theory should adopt a philosophical anarchist position concerning political obligation. The conclusions are mixed. Drawing on a distinction between strong and weak theories of political obligation (in the terminology of the paper, strong theories are committed to morality-based theorizing while weak theories depart from it), the article argues that philosophical anarchism and realist theory are natural allies against strong theories of political obligation but they must part company when it comes to weak theories because it is exactly their departure from morality-based theorizing that can make weak theories especially appealing to realists. In addition, two further objections can be raised against philosophical anarchism on realist grounds: first, philosophical anarchists are drawn to undesirably sweeping conclusions about the non-existence of legitimate political authority or the extreme scarcity of genuine political relations by their Kantian or Lockean background assumptions and, second, Simmons seems to have an implicit weak theory of political obligation which could be, ironically, much more appealing to realists than his overall Lockean anarchism or his sweeping criticism of weak theories. All in all, can a realist be an anarchist? Probably, but definitely not on philosophical anarchist grounds.

Resumo: O propósito do presente artigo é apresentar a defesa da tolerância realizada por John Locke na Carta sobre a Tolerância e avaliar se ela pode ser interpretada como uma reivindicação da laicidade do Estado. De modo mais específico, o que se almeja é analisar a distinção entre os fins do Estado e da Igreja tal como proposta por Locke e verificar em que medida ela corresponde ao conceito de laicidade formulado na Declaração Universal da Laicidade no Século XXI.

Abstract: This article presents John Locke’s defence of toleration in the Epistola de Tolerantia and assesses the possibility of interpreting it as a vindication of a secular State. In particular, the goal is to analyse Locke’s distinction of the ends of Church and State and to determine to which degree it answers to the concept of laïcité formulated in the Universal Declaration of Laïcité in the 21st century.

Liberalism is a term employed in a dizzying variety of ways across the humanities and social sciences. This essay seeks to reframe how the liberal tradition is understood. I start by delineating different types of response – prescriptive, comprehensive, explanatory – that are frequently conflated in answering the question “what is liberalism?” I then discuss assorted methodological strategies employed in the existing literature: after rejecting “stipulative” and “canonical” approaches, I outline a contextualist alternative. On this (comprehensive) account, liberalism is best characterised as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognised as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, over time. In the remainder of the article I present an historical analysis of shifts in the meaning of liberalism in Anglo-American political thought between 1850 and 1950, focusing in particular on how John Locke came to be seen as a liberal. I also explore the emergence of the category of "liberal democracy". I argue that the scope of the liberal tradition was massively expanded during the middle decades of the twentieth century, such that it came to be seen by many as the constitutive ideology of the West. This capacious (and deeply confusing) understanding of liberalism was produced by a conjunction of the ideological wars fought against “totalitarianism” and assorted developments in the social sciences. Today we both inherit and inhabit it.

Comparative Analysis of John Locke's Second Trestise of Government and Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Discourses of the Livy.
Author: Angel Versetti

"A wise ruler should nip any rebellion in the bud, claims Machiavelli’s Prince. Yet people have a right to rebel even against the shadow of tyranny, according to Locke’s Second Treatise. These two notions might suggest eternal confrontation between the oppressive ruler and rebellious citizenry, paranoid and suspicious of each other’s schemes. This is where the moderating approach from Machiavelli’s Discourses comes in: rebellion is a nuisance, but since the ruler needs the power of people to assist him in his quest for glory, let them rant and mob a bit.""

THE SUBJECT MATTER of this essay is Locke's well-known
discussion of consent in sections 116-122 of the Second Treatise of Government.' I will not be concerned to discuss the place of consent in Locke's political philosophy 2 My concerns are somewhat narrower than this. I will simply be concerned to show that in important respects several recent discussions of Locke's political philosophy have misrepresented Locke's views on the subject of express and tacit consent. At theheart of these misinterpretations lie misunderstandings about the way in
which landownership and the inheritance of land are related to express and tacit consent. I will show that these misinterpretations of Locke's views are, to a certain extent, indicative of internal strains that can bediscovered in Locke's arguments.
        My discussion will fall into four sections. In the first I will try toclarify Locke's views on the nature of express consent. I will show that Locke's views on this matter, when examined in their historical context, are not as obscure as some critics have suggested. In the second section I will examine Locke's views on the nature of tacit consent. I will be especially concerned to examine the relationship between landownership and express and tacit consent. In the third section I will look at Locke's views on the inheritance of land and how it relates to express and tacit consent. I will show that his views on this matter are not entirely consistent. In one passage Locke suggests that inheritance of land requires only tacit consent whereas, in another passage, he suggests that inheritance of land requires full membership of society and express consent. In the fourth and final section I will summarize the salient features of my interpretation of Locke's views on the subject of express and tacit consent. I will also briefly note interpretations of Locke's views that have been rejected in the course of this essay.
____
Reprinted in J.R.Milton, ed., Locke's Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy  (Ashgate, 1999), 465-482.

Two years after the publication of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sought advice from his Irish friend, William Molyneux, concerning improvements for the second edition. This discussion resulted in the most substantial alterations of the Essay. Among these changes, Molyneux proposed a "Jocose Problem"-a 17th Century "brain-teaser"-concerning the ability of a formerly blind person to recognize the simple difference between the appearance of a cube and a sphere. Molyneux's jocose riddle eventually awakened "the greatest philosophic interest" and became the "common center" of attention for 18th Century thinkers like Berkeley, Voltaire, and Diderot (Cassirer 1951, 108-9). The following is meant to reintroduce Molyneux's Problem by suggesting its origin in the thought of Thomas Hobbes and its bearing on the role of religion in public life. After examining Molyneux's Problem and its importance for understanding the Essay, I conclude with a brief comparison to Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration in order to stress its bearing on theoretical and practical considerations for a wide range of political scientists.

Lord of the Flies (1954) is truly one of the most important works that illustrates the relationship between humankind and politics in the English literature. In the story, we witness a group of boys that have survived from a plain-wreck, finding themselves in a solitary island which has no sign of civilization. The situation puts forth interesting questions about how the boys will react to this isolated  environment. “The isolated island provides an appropriate stage for the survival story of the deserted boys, but also suggests a universal, timeless backdrop for symbolic action.” (Dickson, 1990)In the socio-political philosophies, there had been many important and grandly influential works written that enables us to answer these questions surrounding Golding’s island. In this field of philosophy, the attempt is to establish a set of written and unwritten rules that each member of the society sacrifices a portion of their liberty into responsibility, which would in turn benefit all of the society.What these philosophers were trying to craft was a co-operative society, which had divided it’s order of power within it’s instututions. They were trying to establish healthy working organs for their society which represented and consecrated to the ultimate power. In Golding’s story the boys are left to answer these questions and have to co-operate in order to survive. This aspect of the novel makes it a unique allegory of the theories that has been debated on this subject.

Beginning in the 1600s, European philosophers started debating the question of who ought to govern a nation. As the absolute rule of kings declined, Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke advocated different forms of government. While in Leviathan, Hobbes favors philosophical absolutism, Locke bases his arguments in Two Treatises of Government on both philosophical and biblical constitutionalism.

Adam Smith closes the first chapter to Theory of Moral Sentiments, 'Of Sympathy', with a harmless enough assertion: 'We sympathize even with the dead'.  Death is not a topic that much interests Smith in Theory of Moral Sentiments. With the exception of a few miscellaneous thoughts in the text, the one paragraph Smith devotes to it is the extent of his interest. It is, however, a matter of interest in his Glasgow lectures on jurisprudence. To the extent we wish to observe the rights of the dead, how far may we extend these rights without infringing upon the rights of the living?  Which is the question: what are the demands the dead may make upon the living?

Locke’s theory of property as found in the Second Treatise of Government was regarded as the cornerstone of classical liberalism (Gough, 1950). His attempt to ground the right to property in natural law was seen to be an important device for asserting the rights of individuals against the state and for limiting the moral authority of the state in a crucial area of human endeavor (Vaughn, 1980). This essay is broadly divided into two parts: the former explaining the justification of private property and the latter evaluating the same. While explaining, we will stick to the time and situation of Locke back in the seventeenth century and while evaluating we shall apply the same in present time and different critiques. While doing this, we shall touch upon Locke’s theory of property, the definitions of property and labour, restrictions and criticisms on the theory, role of government and the evaluation.

The task to reshape governments in the countries confronted with the Arab Spring prompts the question whether there are necessary conditions to realize a stable society that simultaneously seeks to eliminate the elements that have led to the uprisings. Acknowledging some constitutional rights seems indispensable in such a process. I argue that such a state of affairs is indeed the case, at least now that the ‘old’ justifications to differentiate between people do not suffice anymore. That is not to say that the countries involved will have identical laws in each respect, but merely that a common basis has to be realized, manifested in political and legal equality, so this given does not derogate from the fact that each country’s specific legislation needs to be shaped in the light of its own history. Such a basis has no ‘moral’ character, but is simply a necessary condition to prevent sedition.

This thesis analyses the role of theology in the birth of classical liberal political philosophy in the West. It aims to show that, like every system of ideas, liberalism is indebted to theology and metaphysics, and that Christian theology has played a major role in the birth thereof. It eventually argues that in the early modern age, liberal political theory was grounded on very basic premises that were borrowed from Christian
theology.

The present article compares John Locke’s and John Owen’s approaches to toleration. Owen, a towering figure of the Puritan revolution and a Protestant scholastic whose work is still the object of significant appreciation in Reformed circles, was Locke’s dean during his time as a student in Oxford. There is a number of treatises on toleration by Owen, especially during the mid-1640s, and later again after the Restoration, in his role as a nonconforming divine. There has also been some speculation regarding the involvement of both Owen and Locke in the circle around Shaftesbury. Together with their writings against Parker and Stillingfleet, this would seem to draw Owen and Locke quite close to each other. Both authors are, however, divided in their approach to Christian doctrine: Owen represents classical confessionalism and Locke modern doctrinal minimalism. The article explores the ways in which these oppositional approaches to doctrine relate to their views of toleration.

In my paper, I attempt to trace the epistemological arguments in John Locke,from which we deduce the principle of toleration not solely in religious matters, but in the whole field of social life. I do not focus only in the Four Letters, but in his total work, to search for the tolerance as an attitude that concerns the broader society, where we interpret in a fundamental way the reason for all the actions and beliefs
that should be tolerated and accepted, not only within the narrow limits of religion. It is an aspect emerging from John Locke’s theory of knowledge in the Essay, where it is developed the theory about individual self-determination, responsibility, personal identity, the difference between knowledge and opinion, moral limitations, the certainty of knowledge, about truth, the circumstances of assent and consent, the conditions for social prosperity, etc. All these matters raise the question about the nature and the conditions of a liberal society, where toleration is of primary
importance for Locke’s social and political philosophy, presented in his other works. Toleration comes within the framework of Locke’s moral limitations, the demands
for the individual moral rectitude, it is always under the control of the experience and it is associated with the individual freedom and free will. It is a part of the system
of values that constitute individual autonomy and freedom, as necessary conditions for the liberal society, the issue at stake of the early modernity.

Political philosopher John Locke stood at the beginning of the classical liberal tradition that has shaped Western discourse throughout modernity, emphasising an unprecedented primacy of the freedom and equality of the autonomous individual, leading to the development of notions such as tolerance, secularism, and human rights. The question central to this paper is to what extent Locke’s political philosophy is predicated on Christian theological commitments, and if a bracketing of this religious background could still result in a purely secular but recognisably Lockean political philosophy. Through a close analysis of several parts of Locke’s bibliography, this paper argues that Locke’s theological commitments are foundational for his political philosophy and that the bracketing of such commitments inevitably leads to unintelligibility of this philosophy. Subsequently, Locke’s thought is placed wider historical context, to see how modern notions such as human rights, equality of humans, and secularism are often deeply rooted in Christian thought.

Although its origins stem from theological debates, the general will would ultimately become one of the most celebrated and denigrated concepts emerging from early modern political thought.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau would make it the central element of his political theory, and it would take on a life of its own during the French Revolution before being subjected to generations of embrace or opprobrium.  James Farr and David Lay Williams have collected for the first time a set of essays that track the evolving history of the general will from its origins to recent times.  These essays include attention to the general will’s theological, political, formal, and substantive dimensions with a careful eye to the concept’s virtues and limitations as understood by its expositors and critics, among them Pascal, Malebranche, Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu, Constant, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, and John Rawls.

Abstrak
Studi ini membahas terkait dengan pemikiran John Locke. Locke bukan hanya seorang filsuf biasa, peranan semasa hidupnya banyak sekali memberikan dampak bagi penerusnya, terutama penanan Locke dalam pendekatan emperisme. Pemikiran John Locke sering sekali digunakan banyak pihak dalam menjelaskan suatu penulisan. Banyak sekali hasil karya John Locke, termasuk dalam dunia filsafat politik yang menjelaskan tentang bagaimana pemikiran John Locke dalam dunia politik yang seringkali mendapatkan perdebatan.
Kata Kunci: John Locke, Emperialsme, Liberalisme, Inggris.

La formule cicéronienne natura aut voluntas associe deux des contributions les plus originales de la philosophie hellénistique et romaine à la pensée éthique et politique occidentale. Les six premiers chapitres examinent éléments fondamentaux de la théorie stoïcienne de la natura et de la loi naturelle, en montrant que les Stoïciens ont inauguré une nouvelle conception de l’éthique dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine – une idée qui était appelée à culminer avec la théorie de Kant.  Les chapitres portant sur les Épicuriens discutent ensuite la manière dont leur conception du plaisir et de la mort a forgé une notion de voluntas qui est aux origines de la notion moderne de libre arbitre. Les développements des deux derniers chapitres entendent montrer de quelle manière ces conceptions originales de la natura et de la voluntas sont devenues des piliers fondamentaux de la pensée éthique et politique des débuts de l’époque moderne .

This paper provides an entrance into central discussions regarding Kant’s account of property. The first section shows how Kant engages and transforms important, related proposals from Hobbes and Locke as well as how the ‘libertarian’ and ‘liberal republican’ interpretive traditions differ in their readings on these points. Since Kantian theories for a long time didn’t focus on Kant’s Doctrine of Right but instead followed Rawls’s lead by developing Kantian theories grounded on Kant’s (meta-) ethical writings, the second section focuses on property discussions found in the Rawlsian tradition. The final section shows how important contemporary work in the Kantian tradition goes beyond Rawlsian, libertarian, and liberal republican concerns of distributive justice among free and equal citizens, to include questions central to, for example, the philosophy of care, feminist philosophy, philosophy of race, philosophy of sex and love, and environmental philosophy.

Öz: Bu çalışma İngiliz filozof John Locke’un doğal hukuk yaklaşımını kendisinin siyaset felsefesi ekseninde ele almaktadır. Locke’un siyaset felsefesi kadar doğal hukuka ilişkin görüşleri de yaşadığı dönemin ekonomi politik gerçekliğinden soyutlanamaz. Locke, 1688 Devrimi öncesinde kapitalist üretim ilişkilerinin hâkim üretim tarzı haline geldiği bir dönemde liberal modern devletin temel esaslarını ortaya koymuştur. Mutlak monarşiyi kralın Tanrısal hakları öğretisinden hareketle savunan kral yanlılarıyla tartışmaya girmiştir. Doğa durumu ve toplum sözleşmesi gibi kavramlar aracılığıyla mülkiyet özgürlüğü ve iktidar üzerinde eşit talep hakkını ön plana çıkarmıştır. Bu bağlamda Locke mülkiyetin korunmasını siyasal otoritenin başlıca görevi olarak nitelendirmiştir. Mülkiyetin korunması ekseninde, doğa durumundan siyasal topluma geçiş sürecinin temeline hukuk düzeninin inşası olgusunu yerleştirmiştir. Böylece hukuk kavramı meşruiyetini doğa durumundan aldığı gibi aynı zamanda toplumsal sözleşmenin ardından oluşan yeni siyasal yapının da kurucu unsuru haline gelmiştir. Çalışmada, belirtilen bu hususlara dayanarak Locke’un kendi felsefi yaklaşımını oluştururken doğal hukuk teorisini nasıl biçimlendirdiği değerlendirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: John Locke, doğal hukuk, mülkiyet hakkı, hukuk düzeni, hukuksal liberalizm.

The Politicization of Natural Law in the Axis of John Locke’s Political Philosophy

Abstract: This article discusses the English philosopher John Locke’s approach to natural law in the axis of his political philosophy. Locke’s arguments regarding to natural law as well as political philosophy cannot be isolated from the political economy of his period. Locke has revealed the main principles of the modern liberal state at a period when capitalist relations of production became the dominant mode of production before the Revolution of 1688. He had gotten into an argument with the royalists who defended the absolute monarchy based on the theory of the Divine rights of the king. He has featured the freedom of property and equal demand rights on power through the concept of state of nature and social contract. In this context, Locke has described the protection of property as the main task of political authority. In the axis of protection of property, he has placed the phenomenon of the construction of the legal order at the basis of the transition process from the state of nature to political society. Thus, the concept of law took its legitimacy from the state of nature and also became the constituent element of the new political structure that emerged after the social contract. In the article, it will be scrutinized how Locke shaped his natural law theory while creating his philosophical approach based on the stated points.

Keywords: John Locke, natural law, right to property, legal order, legal liberalism

Political philosophers often employ figures of speech such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, and parallelism in order to add some sort of a literary or rhetorical quality to their writings and also to help the reader understand their political philosophies. For instance, even though warning against using metaphor for the possibility that it might be deceptive (Hobbes 4:102-3), Thomas Hobbes contradicts himself, perhaps due to the nature and power of metaphor, and uses the “Leviathan” for illustrative purposes for his case. In his book Two Treatise of Government, John Locke, similar Hobbes, builds his case on rational arguments and utilizes metaphors and parallelism (such as “mixing labor,” “body politic,” and “appealing to heaven”) only for illustrative purposes, to give rhetorical power to arguments that are not, in their definitive formulations, based upon metaphor. In his explanation of philosophies, Locke’s use of figures of speech makes his case more philosophical and illustrative with real life examples, whereas Hobbes’ use appears more political and hypothetical.

Responding to Quentin Skinner's narrative of the development of the concept of the right to revolution in his landmark work Foundations of Modern Political Thought, I argue that John Locke should be reinstated as the seminal figure in articulating the right to revolution. Skinner reduces the right to revolution to an argument for popular resistance (as developed by the Monarchomachs), but this overlooks the central role of  the evolution of the concept of sovereignty in formulating revolutionary discourse. I argue that John Locke is the first to synthesize the popular resistance arguments of the Monarchomachs with the notion of modern sovereignty developed by Jean Bodin and George Lawson in order to form the basic position of the modern right to revolution.

JOSE ORLANDO MELO NARANJO

John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.John Locke CARTA SOBRE LA TOLERANCIA ANÁLISIS,  Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, contexto Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, política Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, pensamiento político Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofía Locke y Carta sobre la tolerancia, filosofo John Locke, pensamiento John Locke.

Ongoing discussion of this paper here: https://www.academia.edu/s/cf13d33860?source=link
Philosophy – whether traditional or contemporary – has nothing to say about the human metaphysical predicament, and cannot even offer a basic phenomenology of the human condition. Part of the problem is the ongoing confusion as to what philosophy actually amounts to, and what it can achieve. It is necessary to demystify philosophy, and have it restricted to the discipline of critical thinking, and it should not be thought of as possessing any substantial theoretical content of its own. It is a method, a skillset, a series of techniques, not a repository of various highbrow theories, whether about mind, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, science, or anything else. Metaphysics is an entirely distinct and separate field of inquiry, and concerns the human predicament, and ultimate human fulfilment, and it is to this end that critical thinking skills can usefully be applied. The purpose of this short study is to give some help to those hoping to gain an insight into the metaphysical realms of their being, and who would like some guidance with regard to those formal and academic disciplines supposedly geared to dealing with that very subject.

In Locke’s Second Treatise of  Government: Book II (1690) and Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762), both philosophers argued that humans are naturally free and equal; however, while Locke argued that human nature is brutal and must be bound by the law of nature, Rousseau stated that human nature is inherently good.

Locke’s theory of property is irreconcilable with intellectual property. Property-like titles in ideal objects cannot be introduced within the framework of the natural law, because they could constrain others from acts necessary for their survival. Nevertheless, followers of Locke’s theory of politics choose to belittle this conclusion and even Locke himself supported early copyright legislation. The inconsistency is important, for it depicts the problem of legitimization of intellectual property as political and demonstrates liberal reification of various aspects of social life.

The paper addresses Locke's political implications in the theory of fiduciary powers presented in the Second Treatise on Government. I proceed by analysing Locke's conception of natural rights in the state of nature as well as his conception of property in accordance with its different articulations (particularly the idea of the private ownership of an acquired object). I reconstruct the logic of the social contract theory and the foundation of the modern bourgeois (liberal) state. The paper concludes by showing the limits of Locke's minimalist conception of the state. It argues that the original placing of the civil society in the state of nature prevents the recognition of a conflictual and dynamical composition of class interests whose mediation is the proper task of politics at the parliamentary level.

“This thoughtful book by Ismail Kurun builds upon earlier investigations of the religious foundations of modern social and political life. Kurun focuses in particular upon the theological and largely Protestant origins of liberalism. We must thank Kurun for his industry and courage in bringing into print an important work of such scope and circumspection.”
-- Michael A. Gillespie, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Duke University, and the author of The Theological Origins of Modernity (University of Chicago Press, 2008)

“The notion that the modern world is primarily a creation of secular Enlightenment thinkers has long been discredited. Yet it is a myth which continues to persist. By making a significant contribution to explaining Christian theology's role in shaping modernity, Ismail Kurun's new book will help readers see the surprising ways in which the modern world has been shaped by Christian thought and practice.”
-- Samuel Gregg, Ph.D., Director of Research, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

“Ismail Kurun’s book fills a gap in the literature on the emergence of liberalism.”
-- Benedikt Koehler, Ph.D., in Economic Affairs

"Kurun … furnishes a robust historical analysis of liberalism’s debt to Protestant theology.”
-- Thomas F. X. Varacalli, PhD, Anglican and Episcopal History

“Schmitt said 'All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development but also because of their systematic structure.' This hypothesis is still controversial: however, Kurun valiantly follows several other major scholars in showing that it cannot be ignored if we want to understand the nature of liberal ideas.”
-- James Alexander, Assis. Prof. of Political Science, Bilkent University

Although many commentators on Rousseau’s philosophy have noted its affinities with Platonism and acknowledged the debt that Rousseau himself expressed to Plato on numerous occasions, David Williams is the first to offer a thoroughgoing, systematic examination of this linkage. His contributions to the scholarship on Rousseau in this book are threefold: he enters the debate over whether Rousseau is a Hobbesian (in rejecting transcendent norms) or a Platonist (in accepting them) with a decisive argument supporting the latter position; he tackles from a new angle the ever-challenging question of unity in Rousseau’s thought; and he explores the dynamic metaphor of the chain throughout Rousseau’s writings as a key to understanding them as inspired by Platonism.

The book is organized into three main parts. The first sketches the background of Platonism and materialist positivism in modern European metaphysics and political philosophy that provided the context for Rousseau’s intellectual development. The second examines Rousseau’s choice of Platonism over positivism and its consequences for his philosophy generally. The third addresses the legacy of Rousseau’s thought and its appropriation by Kant, Marx, and Foucault, suggesting that in an age where materialism and relativism are rife, Rousseau may have much to teach us about how we view our own society and can engage in constructive critique of it.

This paper not only describes a confusing network of terms (including “political society”,
“commonwealth”, and “community”), thus defining a problem of interpretation,
but also partially solves the problem. One result is that Locke turns out to differ in at
least one important way from those theorists of social contract supposedly belonging
to the same tradition, especially Hobbes, Rousseau, and Rawls. The Two Treatises lacks
any social contract, that is, a contract constituting society in the inclusive sense usually
given “society” in discussions of “social contract”. Locke’s concept of “political society”
deserves a closer look, since it has largely been overlooked until now.