Leo Fernevak's avatar
Leo Fernevak LeoFernevak@BitcoinNostr.com 2 years ago
A few thoughts on the postmodern criticism of John Locke. John Locke was born in Somerset, England in 1632. He lived most of his life in England, with some time abroad in exile in France and the Netherlands. The ideas of Locke would after his death in 1704 come to have significant impact on the abolition of slavery and in contributing to the liberty ideals of the American revolution of 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. In order to understand Locke's position on slavery it is necessary to return to his opening salvo of Two Treatises Of Government, published in 1690: -------- "Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an "Englishman" much less a "gentleman" should plead for it." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 1, chapter 1.1) --------- There is no doubt regarding Locke's adamant stance on slavery here, unless we assume that we possess a mindreading capacity and insert words and meanings into his statements based on our own twisting of his words. However, this book was published in 1690, at which time he would have been 58 years old, a mere 14 years before his death in 1704. It is possible that he gradually developed this firm position over the course of his life and it is not self evident that he always held these values. One allegation against John Locke was that he owned stocks in an English trading company called The Royal African Company, that was involved in the African slave trade. Let us look closer at this involvement. I don't have access to the documents regarding his shares ownership so I have to rely on the information available, which may or may not be accurate. Holly Brewer writes that Locke worked as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations between 1672 - 1674, and that he was paid during these years in the form of stocks from the company Royal African Company. While the original purpose of the RAC was to trade for gold in Gambia, it later became involved in slave trade. In 1675 Locke sold his shares in the RAC, after 3-4 years of share ownership. Together with Shaftesbury, Locke wrote a tract in 1675 condemning king Charles II for absolutism and the enslavement of subjects. Locke fled to France that same year, while his co-author Shaftesbury, ended up imprisoned. A few years later, in1679, Locke returned to England but had to escape his native soil yet again, this time together with Shaftesbury, to the Netherlands where he would work on his Two Treatises of Government. Several years would pass until he was able to return to England. Locke's publication of his book Two Treatises in 1690 reflected his opposition to slavery and abusive power, a theory which he had developed over the years. In the past, slavery had been a part of the concept of property rights. Locke, with his groundbreaking book Two Treatises of Government, turned this notion on its head. The new concept of property that Locke formulated was founded on the premise that all humans are born free, without masters, and that every man owns himself and the fruits of his labor. This was a revolutionary concept of property rights: suddenly, according to this new doctrine, slavery had been turned into a violation of property rights. You can't own a person who owns himself - this is impossible. To respect property rights in the new Lockean sense now involved respecting every individual as a sovereign person who owns himself and his labor. It is hard to imagine a stronger and more convincing foundation for rejecting slavery: --------- "Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Part 2, Chapter 5.27, page 130, Two Treatises of Government) -------- The brilliance of Locke's reasoning was that respecting this new idea of property rights, it cannot simultaneously be combined with the idea of slavery, it is a logical inconceiveability. Locke also cemented a strong case against authoritarianism, colonization and oppression: -------- "And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Section 2, chapter 3.17, page 125) -------- -------- "So he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (Chapter 3.17) ------- ------ "It being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Chapter 3.16) ----- In summary, the philosophy of John Locke has been instrumental in the ideological rejection of slavery and for the advancement of a civilized approach to property rights and free markets, with respect for individual rights. Those in power that may seek to establish a 1984 society in the future will always be at war with John Locke's theory of liberty, property and human rights. And to be more precise: any manifestation of a tyrannical state is a declaration of war against the citizens of such a state. No wonder that future and contemporary tyrants will be lining up to discredit John Locke. From a bitcoin perspective, John Locke was a rehabilitated shitcoiner that sold his lousy stonks and wrote an instrumental treatise that changed the future in favor of liberty.

Replies (3)

Leo Fernevak's avatar
Leo Fernevak LeoFernevak@BitcoinNostr.com 1 year ago
Anti Money Laundering laws are an attack on property rights. TLDR: Unless AML regulations can be refuted and abolished, property rights cannot exist and we are back to legalized slavery. Property rights rests on the bedrock of logic that John Locke formulated in 1690 with his publication Two Treatises of Government. Locke's ideas were instrumental in the rejection and abolishment of human slavery. He postulated that every human is born free and is a sovereign person who owns themselves and the fruits of their labor. ------------- "Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his." (Book II, Chapter 5.27, page 130) ------------- Following this reasoning, slavery becomes a violation of property rights: we can't own another human being since every person is born sovereign. We have no right to what another person earns with their labor. Only voluntary contracts that are mutually beneficial are valid arrangements. The problem of AML regulations becomes obvious at this point. First of all, AML reverses the burden of evidence and postulates guilt until proven innocence. Your money is assumed to be laundered - and thereby illegal - until proven otherwise. This flips the whole Western conception of legal proceedings on its head; the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Instead, AML assumes criminal activity as the standard, with no requirement of the government to spend resources to prove a committed crime in a court of law backed by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Under AML, in order to abolish your property rights, the government only needs to raise the bar for what constitutes accepted evidence to prove the history of your earnings. This sets absolute surveillance as the standard. If the government want to strip you of your property under AML, all that is needed is for the government to reject the history of your property as invalid or inconclusive. In the case of a banking service that you used in the past, if it no longer exists, or if it no longer have your records, or if you are unable to gain access to those records, your property is confiscated under AML. AML regulations abolish the right of the individual to own the fruits of their labor, by empowering a third party to determine if your property is valid, without any burden of evidence. If the validity of your money can be rejected at any point by a third party, your property rights have been abolished, ipso facto. Returning to John Locke: ".. for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (Book II, Chapter 3.18) ".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Book II, Chapter 3.17) Since AML regulations require absolute surveillance and the individual is at the complete mercy of the third party that determines the validity of their money at any given time, the statements of Locke ring uncannily true. Locking the fruits of a person's labor under someone else's full power and control, transforms the working individual into nothing more than a slave, chained the whims and conditions of the controller. The situation under AML regulations is captured in this statement: "I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further" Following Locke, we don't have to accept a dystopian future without individual rights and property rights, ruled by neo-feudalism. This is why Bitcoin is a return to the ideas of John Locke. On a Bitcoin standard there is no third party that validates your transactions. The money you have earned is yours without restriction. Your money cannot be invalidated. Your transactions cannot be stopped. Under a Bitcoin standard, criminals will have to be found guilty in a court of law, based on evidence. Bitcoin is a return to justice and property rights for all. Further on John Locke: View quoted note → View quoted note → #Bitcoin #JohnLocke #Locke #AML #KYC #FreeMarkets #Voluntarism #PropertyRights #IndividualRights #Libertarianism #Libertarian #Liberty #AntiSlavery #Capitalism #FreeMarketCapitalism #Philosophy #Sovereignty #AynRand #Objectivism #Individualism
Leo Fernevak's avatar Leo Fernevak
A brief exploration on Locke's position on both slavery and property rights. -------- "Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an "Englishman" much less a "gentleman" should plead for it." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 1, chapter 1.1) --------- I would say that this introduction to his book gives a clear oposition against slavery. While he is also simultaneously patting his fellow Englishmen on the back with assumed virtues, I would read this flattery as a form of sugar to allow the medicine of the message to sink down. He makes an allusion to gentlemen and sets a determined tone that anyone aspiring to be a civilized English gentleman, must not argue in favor of slavery. --------- "The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his -- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 2, chapter 5.26, page 129) ---------- This seems to be a general acknowledgement of some form of 'first right of land use' to american natives in regards to their territories, including both that which grows and the animals of the land. Locke was living in Europe and he seems to have only given the subject a cursory glance. But if we follow his next principles, we can keep in mind that he attributed the same rights of property to all humans. --------- "Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Chapter 5.27, page 130) -------- Following the meaning of this statement, it becomes evident that slavery is an attack against property rights - an attack against the right of every human to own themselves and to own the fruits of their labor. Slavery understandably disallows a man the fruits of his labor. --------- "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property." --------- While this is an incomplete definition that leaves room for interpretation, it seems it would include native americans using land for cattle hunting, foraging and homesteading. If he fails to describe all manners of land use I wouldn't assume that his intention was to dispossess other people living on another continent from himself, but that it would more likely be an omission based on his cursory treatment of this narrow subject. He assumes that natives have the same property rights as everyone else, so it isn't something he dwells on. ‐----------- "Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war" (Section 2, chapter 3.19, page 126) ------------ So, what did Locke mean with a state of war? -------- "And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Section 2, chapter 3.17, page 125) -------- Next, another similar passage: -------- "So he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (Chapter 3.17) ------- ------ "It being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Chapter 3.16) ----- This is clearly a general defense of anyone who is being abused, to have the right to stand up against the abuse and enter into a state of war against the aggressor. To sum up, contrary to some claims that Locke was hostile to native americans, I think that Locke's principles would have supported the rights of american natives to fight back - to enter a state of war - if their liberty and natural rights to use their land was at stake. Thank you for reading.
View quoted note →
4 replies ↓
Leo Fernevak's avatar
Leo Fernevak LeoFernevak@BitcoinNostr.com 1 year ago
Followed! I wrote a couple of notes on John Locke and his perspective on property rights and self defense. View quoted note → View quoted note →
Leo Fernevak's avatar Leo Fernevak
A brief exploration on Locke's position on both slavery and property rights. -------- "Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an "Englishman" much less a "gentleman" should plead for it." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 1, chapter 1.1) --------- I would say that this introduction to his book gives a clear oposition against slavery. While he is also simultaneously patting his fellow Englishmen on the back with assumed virtues, I would read this flattery as a form of sugar to allow the medicine of the message to sink down. He makes an allusion to gentlemen and sets a determined tone that anyone aspiring to be a civilized English gentleman, must not argue in favor of slavery. --------- "The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his -- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 2, chapter 5.26, page 129) ---------- This seems to be a general acknowledgement of some form of 'first right of land use' to american natives in regards to their territories, including both that which grows and the animals of the land. Locke was living in Europe and he seems to have only given the subject a cursory glance. But if we follow his next principles, we can keep in mind that he attributed the same rights of property to all humans. --------- "Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Chapter 5.27, page 130) -------- Following the meaning of this statement, it becomes evident that slavery is an attack against property rights - an attack against the right of every human to own themselves and to own the fruits of their labor. Slavery understandably disallows a man the fruits of his labor. --------- "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property." --------- While this is an incomplete definition that leaves room for interpretation, it seems it would include native americans using land for cattle hunting, foraging and homesteading. If he fails to describe all manners of land use I wouldn't assume that his intention was to dispossess other people living on another continent from himself, but that it would more likely be an omission based on his cursory treatment of this narrow subject. He assumes that natives have the same property rights as everyone else, so it isn't something he dwells on. ‐----------- "Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war" (Section 2, chapter 3.19, page 126) ------------ So, what did Locke mean with a state of war? -------- "And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Section 2, chapter 3.17, page 125) -------- Next, another similar passage: -------- "So he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (Chapter 3.17) ------- ------ "It being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Chapter 3.16) ----- This is clearly a general defense of anyone who is being abused, to have the right to stand up against the abuse and enter into a state of war against the aggressor. To sum up, contrary to some claims that Locke was hostile to native americans, I think that Locke's principles would have supported the rights of american natives to fight back - to enter a state of war - if their liberty and natural rights to use their land was at stake. Thank you for reading.
View quoted note →
1 replies ↓
↑