Asderathos' Blog

About Me - Ask? - Thoughts & Replies - #Tags - Pinterest - eLibrary - Annotated Constitution


"though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth" -Corinthians 13
"if by supporting the rights of mankind... I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny, or of ignorance, equally fatal, his blessing and tears of transport will be a sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind."-Marchese di Beccaria
"Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder." -Rumi

#John Locke

Anonymous asked: The right to life does not come first And never has.

these ppl don’t even know what a ‘right’ is… =/

 [John Locke] defended the natural law tradition whose glorious lineage goes back to the ancient Jews: the tradition that rulers cannot legitimately do anything they want, because there are moral laws applying to everyone.

The very concept of Natural Rights is the moral order, that legitimate government is established to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property.

rightwinged:

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless.

“Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” Locke envisoned a rule of law: “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.”

Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.

He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “mustnot raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property#axzz2m6JLZeZT

“For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole… nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole, which, considering the infirmities of health and avocations of business which… will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly; and the variety of opinions and contrariety of interests which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, it is next [to] impossible ever to be had.”

– John Locke

Locke, Consent, and the Rights of Children b Bryan Caplan 1993 »

Locke firmly denies Filmer’s theory that it is morally permissible for parents to treat their children however they please: “They who allege the Practice of Mankind, for exposing or selling their Children, as a Proof of their Power over them, are with Sir Rob. happy Arguers, and cannot but recommend their Opinion by founding it on the most shameful Action, and most unnatural Murder, humane Nature is capable of.” (First Treatise, sec.56) Rather, Locke argues that children have the same moral rights as any other person, though the child’s inadequate mental faculties make it permissible for his parents to rule over him to a limited degree. “Thus we are born Free, as we are born Rational; not that we have actually the Exercise of either: Age that brings one, brings with it the other too.” (Second Treatise, sec.61) On top of this, he affirms a postive, non-contractual duty of parents to provide for their offspring: “But to supply the Defects of this imperfect State, till the Improvement of Growth and Age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all Parents were, by the Law of Nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the Children, they had begotten.” (Second Treatise, sec.56)

“The supreme power [The Common-Wealth] cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own [believe].”

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government [Select Quotation found in The 5000 Year Leap]

“it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use… Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian’s who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common [God given] right of every one.”

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government [Select Excerpt Quoted in the 5000 Year Leap]

Un­der En­glish com­mon law, a most unique sig­nif­icance was at­tached to the un­alien­able right of pos­sess­ing, de­vel­op­ing, and dis­pos­ing of prop­er­ty. Land and the prod­ucts of the earth were con­sid­ered a gift of God which were to be cul­ti­vat­ed, beau­ti­fied, and brought un­der do­min­ion. As the Psalmist had writ­ten:

“… even the heav­ens are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he giv­en to the chil­dren of men.”

Mankind Giv­en the Earth “In Com­mon”

John Locke point­ed out that the hu­man fam­ily orig­inal­ly re­ceived the plan­et earth as a com­mon gift and that mankind was giv­en the ca­pac­ity and re­spon­si­bil­ity to im­prove it. Said he:

“God, who hath giv­en the world to men in com­mon, hath al­so giv­en them rea­son to make use of it to the best ad­van­tage of life and con­ve­nience.” 166

De­vel­op­ment of the Earth Most­ly by Pri­vate En­deav­or

Then Locke point­ed out that man re­ceived the com­mand­ment from his Cre­ator to “sub­due” the earth and “have do­min­ion” over it. 167

But be­cause do­min­ion means con­trol, and con­trol re­quires ex­clu­sive­ness, pri­vate rights in prop­er­ty be­came an in­escapable ne­ces­si­ty or an in­her­ent as­pect of sub­du­ing the earth and bring­ing it un­der do­min­ion.

It is ob­vi­ous that if there were no such thing as “own­er­ship” in prop­er­ty, which means legal­ly pro­tect­ed ex­clu­sive­ness, there would be no sub­du­ing or ex­ten­sive de­vel­op­ment of the re­sources of the earth. With­out pri­vate “rights” in de­vel­oped or im­proved prop­er­ty, it would be per­fect­ly law­ful for a lazy, cov­etous neigh­bor to move in as soon as the im­prove­ments were com­plet­ed and take pos­ses­sion of the fruits of his in­dus­tri­ous neigh­bor. And even the cov­etous neigh­bor would not be se­cure, be­cause some­one stronger than he could take it away from him.

With­out Prop­er­ty Rights, Four Things Would Oc­cur

Note that if prop­er­ty rights did not ex­ist, four things would oc­cur which would com­plete­ly frus­trate the Cre­ator’s com­mand to mul­ti­ply and re­plen­ish the earth and sub­due it and bring it un­der do­min­ion:

1. One ex­pe­ri­ence like the above would tend to com­plete­ly de­stroy the in­cen­tive of an in­dus­tri­ous per­son to de­vel­op and im­prove any more prop­er­ty.

2. The in­dus­tri­ous in­di­vid­ual would al­so be de­prived of the fruits of his la­bor.

3. Ma­raud­ing bands would even be tempt­ed to go about the coun­try con­fis­cat­ing by force and vi­olence the good things which oth­ers had fru­gal­ly and painstak­ing­ly pro­vid­ed.

4. Mankind would be im­pelled to re­main on a bare sub­sis­tence lev­el of hand-​to-​mouth sur­vival be­cause the ac­cu­mu­la­tion of any­thing would in­vite at­tack.

A Per­son’s Prop­er­ty is a Pro­jec­tion of Life It­self

An­oth­er in­ter­est­ing point made by Locke is the fact that all prop­er­ty is an ex­ten­sion of a per­son’s life, en­er­gy, and in­ge­nu­ity. There­fore, to de­stroy or con­fis­cate such prop­er­ty is, in re­al­ity, an at­tack on the essence of life it­self.

The per­son who has worked to cul­ti­vate a farm, ob­tained food by hunt­ing, carved a beau­ti­ful stat­ue, or se­cured a wage by his la­bor, has pro­ject­ed his very be­ing — the very essence of his life — in­to that la­bor. This is why Locke main­tained that a threat to that prop­er­ty is a threat to the essence of life it­self. Here is his rea­son­ing:

“Though the earth and all in­fe­ri­or crea­tures be com­mon [as the gift from God] to all men, yet ev­ery man has a ”prop­er­ty“ in his own ”per­son.“ This, no­body has any right to but him­self. The ”la­bor“ of his body and the ”work” of his hands, we may say, are prop­er­ly his. What­so­ev­er, then, he re­moves out of the state that Na­ture hath pro­vid­ed and left it in, he hath mixed his la­bor with it, and joined to it some­thing that is his own, and there­by makes it his prop­er­ty….

“He that is nour­ished by the acorns he picked up un­der an oak, or the ap­ples he gath­ered from the trees in the wood, has cer­tain­ly ap­pro­pri­at­ed them to him­self. No­body can de­ny but the nour­ish­ment is his. I ask, then, when did they be­gin to be his? When he di­gest­ed? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if the first gath­er­ing made them not his, noth­ing else could.”

– The 5,000 Year Leap [The Fourteenth Principle]

“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property… [therefore,] whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they [the officials of government] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands… and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security”

John Locke Two Treatises of Govt. 

Most enfluential Enlightenment Thinker upon the Founding Fathers.

Ci­cero de­fines Nat­ural Law as “true law.” Then he says:

“True law is right rea­son in agree­ment with na­ture; it is of uni­ver­sal ap­pli­ca­tion, un­chang­ing and ev­er­last­ing; it sum­mons to du­ty by its com­mands, and averts from wrong­do­ing by its pro­hi­bi­tions…. It is a sin to try to al­ter this law, nor is it al­low­able to re­peal any part of it, and it is im­pos­si­ble to abol­ish en­tire­ly. We can­not be freed from its obli­ga­tions by sen­ate or peo­ple, and we need not look out­side our­selves for an ex­pounder or in­ter­preter of it. And there will not be dif­fer­ent laws at Rome and Athens, or dif­fer­ent laws now and in the fu­ture, but one eter­nal and un­change­able law will be valid for all na­tions and all times, and there will be one mas­ter and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the au­thor of this law, its pro­mul­ga­tor, and its en­forc­ing judge. Who­ev­er is dis­obe­di­ent is flee­ing from him­self and deny­ing his hu­man na­ture, and by rea­son of this very fact he will suf­fer the worst pun­ish­ment.” 22

In these few lines the stu­dent en­coun­ters con­cepts which were re­peat­ed by the Amer­ican Founders a thou­sand times. The Law of Na­ture or Na­ture’s God is eter­nal in its ba­sic good­ness; it is uni­ver­sal in its ap­pli­ca­tion. It is a code of “right rea­son” from the Cre­ator him­self. It can­not be al­tered. It can­not be re­pealed. It can­not be aban­doned by leg­is­la­tors or the peo­ple them­selves, even though they may pre­tend to do so. In Nat­ural Law we are deal­ing with fac­tors of ab­so­lute re­al­ity. It is ba­sic in its prin­ci­ples, com­pre­hen­si­ble to the hu­man mind, and to­tal­ly cor­rect and moral­ly right in its gen­er­al op­er­ation.

To the Found­ing Fa­thers as well as to Black­stone, John Locke, Mon­tesquieu, and Ci­cero, this was a mon­umen­tal dis­cov­ery.

– The 5,000 Year Leap: Nat­ural Law Is Eter­nal and Uni­ver­sal

So if sec­ular En­light­en­ment writ­ers were not a pri­ma­ry force in shap­ing Jef­fer­son’s think­ing, then who was? Jef­fer­son him­self an­swered that ques­tion, declar­ing that “Ba­con, New­ton and Locke … [are] my trin­ity of the three great­est men the world had ev­er pro­duced.”30

Fran­cis Ba­con, a British philoso­pher, at­tor­ney, and states­man, called the“Fa­ther of Mod­ern Sci­ence,”31 is known for de­vel­op­ing the pro­cess of in­duc­tive think­ing and cre­at­ing the sci­en­tif­ic method. His­to­ri­ans have de­clared that “[T]he in­tel­lect of Ba­con was one of the most pow­er­ful and search­ing ev­er pos­sessed by man.”32 Ba­con was by no means sec­ular; rather, he was quite the op­po­site. In his not­ed work De In­ter­pre­ta­tione Nat­urae Prooemi­um (1603), he de­clared that his three­fold goal was to dis­cov­er truth, serve his coun­try, and serve the church. He as­sert­ed that the vig­or­ous pur­suit of truth would al­ways lead one di­rect­ly to God:

[A] lit­tle phi­los­ophy in­clineth man’s mind to athe­ism; but depth in phi­los­ophy bringeth men’s minds about to re­li­gion.33

Ba­con was fa­mous for pen­ning many re­li­gious works, in­clud­ing Es­says, Ten in Num­ber, Com­bined with Sa­cred Med­ita­tions and the Col­ors of Good and Evil (1597); The Pro­fi­cien­cies and Ad­vance­ment of Learn­ing, Di­vine and Hu­man (1605); On the Uni­ty in Re­li­gion (1612); On Athe­ism (1612); Of Praise (1612); as well as a trans­la­tion of some of the psalms (1625). This out­spo­ken and fa­mous Chris­tian writ­er and philoso­pher who nev­er sep­arat­ed God or re­li­gion from sci­ence or gov­ern­ment was the first of Jef­fer­son’s tri­umvi­rate of the world’s great­est in­di­vid­uals.

The sec­ond in his list was Isaac New­ton, an En­glish states­man, math­emati­cian, and sci­en­tist, cred­it­ed with birthing mod­ern cal­cu­lus and dis­cov­er­ing the laws of uni­ver­sal grav­ita­tion. New­ton did ex­ten­sive work in physics, as­tron­omy, and op­tics and was the first sci­en­tist to be knight­ed for his work. Strik­ing­ly, how­ev­er:

He spent more time on the­ol­ogy than on sci­ence; in­deed, he wrote about 1.3 mil­lion words on Bib­li­cal sub­jects… . New­ton’s un­der­stand­ing of God came pri­mar­ily from the Bible, which he stud­ied for days and weeks at a time… . New­ton’s the­ol­ogy pro­found­ly in­flu­enced his sci­en­tif­ic method… . His God was not mere­ly a philoso­pher’s im­per­son­al First Cause; He was the God in the Bible Who freely cre­ates and rules the world, Who speaks and acts in his­to­ry.34

Among New­ton’s many the­olog­ical works were his Ob­ser­va­tions Up­on the Prophe­cies of Daniel and the Apoc­alypse of St. John (1733) and Notes on Ear­ly Church His­to­ry (c. 1680) among many oth­ers. And through­out his sci­en­tif­ic works, New­ton al­so main­tained a dis­tinct­ly Bib­li­cal Cre­ation­ist view—such as in his 1687 Prin­cip­ia (con­sid­ered “the great­est sci­en­tif­ic book ev­er writ­ten”35) in which he stat­ed:

"This most beau­ti­ful sys­tem of the sun, plan­ets, and comets could on­ly pro­ceed from the coun­sel and do­min­ion of an in­tel­li­gent and pow­er­ful Be­ing. And if the fixed stars are the cen­tres of oth­er like sys­tems, these, be­ing formed by the like wise coun­sel, must be all sub­ject to the do­min­ion of One."36

This Chris­tian the­olo­gian and philoso­pher was the sec­ond of Jef­fer­son’s trin­ity of per­son­al heroes.

The third was En­glish philoso­pher and po­lit­ical the­orist John Locke. Locke was in­ti­mate­ly in­volved with pol­itics in Eng­land and al­so played a large role in shap­ing Amer­ica, in­clud­ing writ­ing the 1669 con­sti­tu­tion for the Car­oli­na Colony.37 He al­so penned nu­mer­ous works on ed­uca­tion, phi­los­ophy, gov­ern­ment, em­piri­cism, and re­li­gion.

To­day’s writ­ers fre­quent­ly de­scribe Locke as a deist (or at least a fol­low­er of an ear­ly form of deism),38 but his­to­ri­ans of ear­li­er gen­er­ations de­scribed him as a Chris­tian the­olo­gian.39 Af­ter all, Locke wrote a verse-​by-​verse com­men­tary on Paul’s Epis­tles40 and al­so com­piled a top­ical Bible, called a Com­mon Place-​Book to the Holy Bible,41 that list­ed vers­es by sub­ject for easy study ref­er­ence. And when an­tire­li­gion­ists at­tacked Chris­tian­ity, Locke de­fend­ed it in his book The Rea­son­able­ness of Chris­tian­ity as De­liv­ered in the Scrip­tures (1695).42 When at­tacks con­tin­ued, Locke re­spond­ed with A Vin­di­ca­tion of the Rea­son­able­ness of Chris­tian­ity (1695)43 and then with A Sec­ond Vin­di­ca­tion of the Rea­son­able­ness of Chris­tian­ity (1697).44 Fur­ther­more, in his Two Trea­tis­es of Gov­ern­ment (1689)—the work specif­ical­ly re­lied up­on by Jef­fer­son and the oth­er Founders as they draft­ed the Dec­la­ra­tion45—Locke in­voked the Bible over 1,500 times.46

Jef­fer­son stud­ied not on­ly Locke’s gov­ern­men­tal and le­gal writ­ings but al­so his the­olog­ical texts. His own per­son­al sum­ma­tion of Locke’s view of Chris­tian­ity clear­ly shows that he def­inite­ly did not con­sid­er Locke to be a deist. Ac­cord­ing to Jef­fer­son:

"Locke’s sys­tem of Chris­tian­ity is this: Adam was cre­at­ed hap­py and im­mor­tal… . By sin he lost this so that he be­came sub­ject to to­tal death (like that of brutes [an­imals]) to the cross­es and un­hap­pi­ness of this life. At the in­ter­ces­sion how­ev­er of the Son of God this sen­tence was in part re­mit­ted… . And more­over to them who be­lieved their faith was to be count­ed for righ­teous­ness [Ro­mans 4:3, 5]. Not that faith with­out works was to save them; St. James, chap­ter 2 says ex­press­ly the con­trary [v. 14–26]… . So that a ref­or­ma­tion of life (in­clud­ed un­der re­pen­tance) was es­sen­tial, and de­fects in this would be made up by their faith; i.e. their faith should be count­ed for righ­teous­ness [Ro­mans 4:3, 5]… . [A]dding a faith in God and His at­tributes that on their re­pen­tance He would par­don them [1 John 1:9]; they al­so would be jus­ti­fied [Ro­mans 3:24]. This then ex­plains the text “there is no oth­er name un­der heav­en by which a man may be saved” [Acts 4:12], i.e., the de­fects in good works shall not be sup­plied by a faith in Ma­homet, Fo [i.e., Bud­dha], or any oth­er ex­cept Christ.47

Fran­cis Ba­con, Is­sac New­ton, and John Locke—each an out­spo­ken Chris­tian thinker and philoso­pher—were de­scribed by Jef­fer­son as “the three great­est men the world has ev­er pro­duced.”48

Jefferson Lies by David Barton - "Ba­con, New­ton and Locke … [are] my trin­ity of the three great­est men the world had ev­er pro­duced.” -Thomas Jefferson

[A] lit­tle phi­los­ophy in­clineth man’s mind to athe­ism; but depth in phi­los­ophy bringeth men’s minds about to re­li­gion."-Francis Bacon

This most beau­ti­ful sys­tem of the sun, plan­ets, and comets could on­ly pro­ceed from the coun­sel and do­min­ion of an in­tel­li­gent and pow­er­ful Be­ing. And if the fixed stars are the cen­tres of oth­er like sys­tems, these, be­ing formed by the like wise coun­sel, must be all sub­ject to the do­min­ion of One." -Isaac Newton

I was going to split this into three posts, but meh.~

Thoughts: I'm sick of these pathetic idiots. »

asderathosessays:

asderathosoriginalthoughts:

I’m sick of these pathetic idiots.

Oh you can’t like John Milton! he was an anti-papist and was okay with censorship of religious writings that conflicted with ‘the church’s doctrine’!~

STFU, Areopagitica ROCKS MY SOX

Oh you can’t like Thomas Paine, he was an atheist!~

STFU, His beliefs plainly changed over time, he was a deist-ish theist [at least] to start out with. And his Common Sense & Crisis pamphlets ROCK MY SOX! I also like his letter in defense of the French King

[I also like Penn Jillette & SE Cupp so take a flying leap.]

Oh you can’t like John Locke or George Whitefield, they were pro slavery!

STFU, Their ideas are what lead to the greatest freeing up of men to ever occur on planet earth; you do not throw that away, mofo, you take the good with the bad, and… 

RAISE A STANDARD THAT THE WISE AND HONEST CAN REPAIR!!! If you expect perfection from humans, much less at the first go of recent genius, you just don’t know what humanity IS. 

These ass-hats are pissin me of with their foolish Presentism; to blame the pilgrim in his first steps for not completing the journey himself but leaving it to posterity, going only as far as he could.

“I imagine any one will easily grant that it would be impertinent to suppose the ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects: and no less unreasonable would it be to attribute several truths to the impressions of nature, and innate characters, when we may observe in ourselves faculties fit to attain as easy and certain knowledge of them as if they were originally imprinted on the mind.”

– John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding

“It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. It is well he knows that it is long enough to reach the bottom, at such places as are necessary to direct his voyage, and caution him against running upon shoals that may ruin him. Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct. If we can find out those measures, whereby a rational creature, put in that state in which man is in this world, may and ought to govern his opinions, and actions depending thereon, we need not to be troubled that some other things escape our knowledge.”

– John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding