46 thoughts on “POLITICAL THEORY – John Locke

  1. I think we have to look at the context that Locke was making his arguments, it was a pre-industrial capitalist time, in which members of society outside the aristocracy, were roughly equal in property and status. The inequality lay in the difference between the state and the individual.
    Whereas now, in a later stage of world capitalist development, we see vast inequalities between individuals, aided by deregulated markets and undemocratic totalitarian transnational business structures called corporations. These unaccountable transnational structures hold vast power and influence over both the collective and the individual, in many cases behave like mini-undemocratic states that extract wealth from an country, only subservient to shareholders looking for short term gain.
    I believe, if we follow Locke's reasoning and superimpose it onto today's society, we do not arrive at a laissez-faire approach to markets and governments at all. To reach this conclusion is erroneous and does not do so for the reasons Locke set out in his pre-Capitalist society.

  2. No mention of him being a hypocrite about Slavery? Locke was General Secretary of the Board of Trade and Plantations, which regulated British slave trade. He was also a shareholder in two slave trading companies, including the Royal Africa Company at the time just before the massive expansion of British slave trading. He sold his shares at a profit. Yet he argued that all men were born free and subjected themselves voluntarily to another authority through a social contract. So basically, slaves chose to be enslaved.
    Also, Barbara Arneil (check out her book 'John Locke and America') and many other scholars believe that the effect of Locke's ideas on private property (not really mentioned in this video) was to 1. support English colonialism in North America and 2. provide a justification for taking away from Native Americans and giving it to English and later, American settlers.
    I realise I sound a bit obnoxious, even though I love The School of Life and its videos. I just got upset that there was so much praising of Lock and no introducing the more critical material and ideas he produced.

  3. I wouldn't necessarily consider music to be useless. It's another medium for conveying information from one person to another, one that in some cases tends to more easily received and understood by the recipient than more traditional communication methods

  4. I don't know if someone in the commenst has already said it, but locke was not tollerant on atheist and cathtolics

  5. 原来宗教自由、政教分离、政府权力不宜过大、民重君轻、教育的重要性以及一个人的价值观主要来自他们少年时这些观点都是他架构起来的,太了不起了!

  6. 7:00 This is a very good point that in today's society, is very prevalent. This is also quite dangerous.

  7. @ 1:05 Shaftesbury it's not a real name sir.
    What do you mean?
    It's a joke name- like Naughtious Maximus or Biggus Dickus

  8. My high school would teach accounting, stoic philosophy, American government, and technical electives.

  9. Separation of church and state isn't in the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution. It was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. Nothing more.

  10. Locke was used in the writing of the constitution. It works really well depending on the intelligence of the leadership and its implementation.

  11. There were more people in the world than Locke preaching for religious toleration than Locke, you cant say hes the reason we believe in it. Definitely influential but js

  12. One thing I wonder is how Locke was so intolerant to Atheists,,,,he even quoted that they should be thrown out of the state!!!
    Nonetheless, England is yet tolerant towards Atheists and is rightly dubbed as the heaven for them😉😉
    Locke's concept of Tabula Rasa has made him the father of Psychology👌👌👌

  13. Eighteenth century England looked with envy by European nations for the religious tolerence ? Absolutely not ! There was a profound fear of catholicism or "papism" which led to numerous revolts and rebellions. Heck, the Glorious Revolution even happened AGAINST a the declaration of indulgence of James II that hoped to reintegrate catholics and dissenters in the society, and they forbade a catholic king on the throne. Numerous dissenters had to move to the colonies to live their faith in peace. When the Edict of Nantes was revoked in France, most protestants did not flee to England, because they were afraid of the religious intolerance of england, they fleed to Holland, Brandenburg, or the colonies. Talk about a model of tolerance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *