File Under: Barack Hussein Obama Finding answers, one file at a time…

3Jan/102

John Locke on Revolution

This was a great man...

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm

Whether any specific use of executive prerogative amounts to an abuse of power, is a question that transcends the social contract itself, and can only be judged by a higher appeal, to the divinely ordained law of nature. (2nd Treatise §168) Remember that according to Locke all legitimate political power derives solely from the consent of the governed to entrust their "lives, liberties, and possessions" to the oversight of the community as a whole, as expressed in the majority of its legislative body. (2nd Treatise §171) The commonwealth as a whole, then, is dissolved (and a new one formed) whenever there is a fundamental change in the membership of the legislature. (2nd Treatise §220)

The most likely cause of such a revolution, Locke supposed, would be abuse of power by the government itself: when the society unduly interferes with the property interests of the citizens, they are bound to protect themselves by withdrawing their consent. (2nd Treatise §222) When great mistakes are made in the governance of a commonwealth, only rebellion holds any promise of the restoration of fundamental rights. (2nd Treatise §225 ) Who is to be the judge of whether or not this has actually occurred? Only the people can decide, Locke maintained, since the very existence of the civil order depends upon their consent. (2nd Treatise §240) On Locke's view, then, the possibility of revolution is a permanent feature of any properly-formed civil society. This provided a post facto defense of the Glorious Revolution in England and was a significant element in attempts to justify later popular revolts in America and France.

Most Commented Posts

Comments (2) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Jay, I just don’t think that God gives you any guarantee at all in this life and people ought to stop talking about God-given rights or divinely inspired rights. The only rights you have are those that we demand for ourselves. There are no rights according to nature. Nature will kill you in a heartbeat without a second thought. There are only rights that we agree that we ought to have and try to maintain. The Jacobins and others of the French Revolution talked about God-given rights and the church declared them Satanists, because of Le Terreur that these people carried out in France and the ethnic cleansing of Christians, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, according to the mandate of their “God”. A lot of these so-called rationalists were extremely anti-Christian and the “God” that they are talking about is definitely not the Christian God. (See Thomas Jefferson, who was no Christian.) I just don’t believe that God serves us or gives us any guarantees of rights or anything else in THIS world. To believe so is just deception, in my opinion. The logical extension of all this talk about God-given rights is a divine destiny for the country and I don’t believe in that either. That is rather more like what Obama believes in the divine destiny of the Black Nation and the destruction of America, as we know it.

  2. Just trying to give you a little different outlook.


Leave a comment


No trackbacks yet.