Notification [x]
Member since: 04/10/2006
Profile last updated: 04/10/2006
Current Status: Offline
1st handshakes

Browse Testimonials
Author Feedback Action
Why would not simply making use of the lands of a country (i.e. for traveling) make you subject to that country's laws because of the implicit benefits you gain (i.e. safe passage, an efficient road, etc.)? I believe that Locke himself addresses this question from this point of view in a later section of the Second Treatise.

Locke's concept of the state of nature, however, is equally questionable with that of Hobbes. When Locke delves into the question of property, he reasons well in his differentiation between the property of mankind and the property of a man. He even skirts on Marx's labor theory of value. It is interesting to compare Locke's theories with contemporary capitalist societies which claim to have a basis in Locke. I see little similarity between the two. Slavery (chattel and wage), exploitation, limited popular access to government, and social priorities which benefit a select part of society all challenge the west's claim to a Locke-style government system.
How does this effect Popper's criticism of Marxism as not scientific when nothing has technically been disproven and cannot be disproven unless another form of social production comes into existence? It obviously weakens Marxism's claim to science, but how can Popper claim that Marxism has probably been disproven?

The Social Contract also keeps people from being totally alienated and affords them better protection. If a large group of people enter a Social Contract, they can more easily defend themselves against their enemies, and criminals who live in societies with no Social Contract. Thus in spite of giving up some individual rights for the Social Contract, they have not lost any more freedom, because all within the society have surrendered their rights freely and equally, and suffer the same inequality. In other words, all things being equal, man is still free, and maintains autonomy. Everyone must surrender his or her rights for the social contract to work. If one person gives up their rights and another does not, the person who does not has power over the other person and there is no contract. However, it is to a person benefit to agree to the social contract, because by giving up the freedom of Natural Liberty an individual gains Civil Liberty. Natural Liberty is the freedom man maintains in the State of Nature. Civil Liberty is freedom you have in society, freedom gained from the social contract. Rousseau argues in chapter eight of the Social Contract, What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, from civil liberty. . . (Rousseau, P.196)
Mill notes that it may be further objected that a person may set a bad example for others by his actions and in that way do harm to others (75). Therefore, we should be concerned with everyone's actions for the good of society. A man who is a drunkard or gambler hurts his family and those that depend on him for services, therefore shouldn't we also be concerned with his actions (75)? A person may be so self degrading that he is doing harm to himself and deserves the help of others even if he does not want their help or advice (76).

Regardless of the government or law Hobbes believes "no man can transferre his Right to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment" (Hobbes 199).
Augustine, however, emphasizes that free will does exist. Is this not a contrary position? Or does the concept of free will versus grace constitute another ambiguous, inexplicable belief-understanding? The idea that we, as human beings alone, have the capacity to determine our own life (whether we turn toward sin or virtue) is the idea of free will. It is our choice and, thus, our responsibility to choose the path of righteousness or the path of sin. This concepts serves to distance god from the tragedy of a human taking the wrong path and suffering the consequences. Because of free will, we cannot blame god for this travesty. The concept of grace, however, distances the ethical human being from the respect of having chosen a positive path.

Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therfore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. (Hume, David S. "Concerning Human Understanding" Section IV, Part I, 20)
Fortunately, the benefits of Dewey's achievements tower over the petty criticism Richard Rorty and myself note. Rorty says:

John Locke believed that all people were equal and independent, and that no one had the right to harm another's "life, health, liberty, or possessions." Locke was not only a renowned philosopher in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but he was an Oxford scholar, medical researcher and physician, political operative, economist and spokesman for a revolutionary movement.