Reflecting on Locke's "Second Treatise of Government." -- Luis Mendoza

By

 There were multiple parts of Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" that caught my eye and left me questioning. More specifically, chapter II (Of the State of Nature) and chapter III (Of the State of War).

    Starting with the State of Nature, the idea of "perfect freedom" was interesting because of the connection to the availability of decision-making/choices, which relates to the previous King's essay. More specifically, I focused on Locke's idea that "power and jurisdiction are reciprocal, no one having more than another," but that the exception is when a "lord or master" placed someone in a higher position of power (8). My mind when straight to the responsibility of one who holds power. At times the issue then becomes that power evolves to be the driving factor in marginalizing individuals within communities. Having this exist shows the opposite of Hooker's perspective that "...brought men to know that it is no less their duty to love others than themselves," which caused me to think about solutions to accomplish such reality (8). In addition, I am left puzzled by this "duty" we as humans hold with each other and Immanuel Kant's belief that humans are naturally evil.  

    My next focus was on chapter III and thinking about the justification of murder in settings like war. One element that brought me curiosity was when King discussed the power of nonviolence and then thought about Locke's section that stated, "I should have the right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" because of the fundamental law of nature (14). I wonder what Locke or similar ideologies would think about accomplishing peace with enemies through nonviolence and repressing the urge caused by anger. In addition, I have left curious about when the state of war should arise because Locke discussed the difference between the state of nature and the state of war. The main difference is that each one is based on a relationship between human connection or tension, but only one has a common superior on earth (state of nature). But I have left curios about the tension that would occur and would be disregarded or judged poorly by a superior— would the breakout of "war" be justifiable? Then I'm not too sure about the belief that if there is no superior on earth, then it's God, but that questions all of the "evil" that occurred throughout historical times. 

   I enjoyed reading the book because Locke left me questioning freedom, justification, and the right to "property."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more