Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

[JBeukema]

I do. I read his Treatise many years ago. Where you fail was the assertion that Locke placed his head in it and pulled the cord.

That statement is a mere opinion, with no support.

Actually, it's a fact

Here he describes his false impression of nature

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

He jumps from "this is how I think it is" to "it ought to be this way"


​

.

 

[JBeukema]

Does not exist in a state equal to

The world is far from fair and equal

.

 

[JBeukema]

You should remember Locke's failure. You were there when his second treatise was refuted.

 

[Intense]

Locke was an idiot who argued that a starving child is repsonsible for his or her own suffering because (s)he has 'equal' ability and means to a rich man. He forms the cornerstone of Bourgeois Liberalism, which is an attempt to justify exploitation and suffering. His is a philosophy or amorality which seeks to justify inequality simply by ignoring it.

The thread was already linked where Locke was destroyed.

JB, How about a Link that quotes Locke directly? Your context is a fail as usual. The only thing that comes to mind is intellectual fraud and deceit. How about you just clarify your true motive. What is it exactly that you have to attempt to disgrace, defraud and misconstrue to advance your quest? Locke shows more tolerance on one page than you have shown in your entire life. Considering what he had available to him in his day, compared to you or I, you fail again. What is the grudge JB? What it the real reason behind the obsession? Tell us. What does he threaten in You?

Maybe you can find something in this link from what he said, rather than what was said about him. Show us from his own words in context.

1689
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[JBeukema]

I quoted him directly out of his treatise. I even linked you to the post that cites the book and the thread that links to the text of the entire work.


You were there the last time Locke was refuted on USMB. Have you already forgotten?

Locke was debunked on his 'natural state' and on his 'natural rights' and the 'inalienable' nature thereof. He and the bourgeois liberalism which rests upon him recognize only the right to exploit.

 

[Intense]

Is it about impotence JB? Is that it? Penis Envy? Spit it out man.

 

[JBeukema]

Right... you can't defend Locke's baseless assertions after they're proven false so you want to talk about my penis?

Do a Google image search if you really need to see a cock.

Come back when you can discuss the matter like an adult.

 

[Intense]

I quoted him directly out of his treatise. I even linked you to the post that cites the book and the thread that links to the text of the entire work.


You were there the last time Locke was refuted on USMB. Have you already forgotten?

You imagine victory, that is between you, reality, and conscience, don't include me. I am not bound by your recollection or lack of reason.

CONCLUSION


The evidence of the early reception of the Two Treatises indicates that the work was not an immediate success in either providing a philosophy for the Whigs or in justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although many of his contemporaries came to admire the First Treatise for its refutation of Robert Filmer�s Patriarcha, many felt that Locke�s philosophical justification of the 1688 Revolution lacked the necessary emphasis on the Ancient Constitution of England to defend the removal of James II from power. Partially due to his work�s anonymity, Locke�s foray into the political realm initially made him little more than one philosopher among many political philosophers. Furthermore, an examination of early references to the Two Treatises suggests that beyond his refutation of Robert Filmer; Locke�s ideas were assembled, disassembled, utilized to support political agendas, and often gotten wrong. However; as the frenzied issues surrounding the Glorious Revolution began to settle, scholars more closely analyzed Locke�s work and his political ideas secured widespread attention. Soon, scholars placed greater emphasis on his broad analysis of natural rights and a social contract. Proponents of Patriarchalism and Divine Right eventually ceased to voice their opinions, and arguments began sprouting around the ideas of Locke�s Second Treatise. As a consequence of these more philosophical and timeless debates, emphasis on the First Treatise has taken a place beneath the pedestal bearing John Locke�s Second Treatise.

The Early Reception of John Locke's Two Treaties of Government: 1668-1702

 

[Intense]

Two Treatises is divided into the First Treatise and the Second Treatise. The original title of the Second Treatise appears to have been simply "Book II," corresponding to the title of the First Treatise, "Book I." Before publication, however, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government."[10] The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely-sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.

The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those which have the consent of the people. Thus, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.

Two Treatises of Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Locke begins by describing the state of nature

A false representation that I refuted in the other thread.

argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature]quote]
Another lie I debunked in the other thread

by God

A baseless assertion without evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense argues from a priori position, not from critical thinking and evaluation of the evidence.

 

[JBeukema]

The evidence debunks his magical natural state. The natural State is not one of equality but of inequality and exploitation.

The fact is that he has no evidence to support his assertion that any god made Man.

 

[Intense]

CHAP. II.

Of the State of Nature.

Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1."

Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2

Your argument is philosophical. One either believes or disbelieves in God. Locke did. The Founders of this Nation did. I do. You don't. Learn to deal with it .

 

[Intense]

Intense argues from a priori position, not from critical thinking and evaluation of the evidence.

Jake You assume way too much. Try to stay focused.