>Live in an age of boundless information >People already

>>2762514
Who dat?

>>2762522
John "I didn't create Liberalism for this shit" Locke

>>2762514
N A T U R A L L A W
A
T
U
R
A
L

L
A
W

>>2762514
>man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains
What did he mean by this?

>>2762514
They teach you all about Locke in PolySci classes, as well as US Govt if you ever took that in HS

But most people don't study poly sci or US Govt, and most people wouldn't give a fuck anyway

File: Tfw.jpg (91KB, 450x413px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 450x413px

>>2763066
This.
Literally first part of the ideologies module on Pol and IR is Liberalism and first G introduced is the Locke smith.
Most people don't give a fuck, it's like when people don't know who the first PM of the UK was. It really doesn't matter if you don't study it and if you do then you already know. Such is life.

Fuck Locke and fuck liberal people

File: 414141.jpg (3MB, 3102x3952px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3102x3952px

Yes, yes.

But did you forget about him?

Parliament engaged in treason, and then after sucessfully overturning a rightful monarch and replacing him with another, they spent decades legitimising themselves by creating the lie of the "glorious revolution". 1689 was the usurpation of power from the monarch, to be given to the oligarchs. This did not happen because it was just, or teleological, but because parliament and William were more deceptive and more powerful. Thank God whig history is beginning to fall out of favor.

Locke was a ninny and a goon.

>>2762530
Hobbes is more important.

is it possible to believe in liberalism without believing in natural rights/natural law

Brits are trash when it comes to philosophy

>spent entire days on the internet
>Don't know that Russians nobles spoke French

File: Liberalism.png (930KB, 1444x741px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 1444x741px

>>2765569
Bretty much, it all hinges on people having inalienable rights and they can only really come from two places, God or Nature, the theist or atheist approaches respectively.
If you don't believe in rights then you can't really get on board with the whole freedom shebang, savvy? And the only way you can believe in rights is if they come from an entity outside of human relativism making them absolute and universal.
Locke and Mill are still bae tho and liberalism is un-ironically GOAT ideology, btfo of commies, fascists, and absolute monarchists alike.

I just read some Locke in college.
I see some hints of communism in his works, special in the "natural state" and the idea that land is for all men but becomes yours once you work it.
Am i in the wrong?

>>2762514
Is there any merit in his empiricism? Should we just go straight to Hume and berkely?

>>2766784
The idea of a long lost natural state or universal harmony has been a theme throughout the ages. Locke, and other enlightenment thinkers, just associated their "natural" story with freedom and based it around humans rather than some natural universal harmony as some past thinkers had. That association of natural with freedom did get carried on into the works of Marx but Marx thought of freedom and the "natural state" of affairs very differently. Marx would have stated that the concept of property rights as you outlined there was a product of the technological level of the means of production. This shouldn't be alarming to you because major philosophic figures often are the inspiration for future major philosophic figures who share almost nothing in common.

>>2762514
>Locke
>not Hobbes
WEW lad