A topic of no importance

[ThomWV]

You might wonder why I've bothered to write this. I'll explain in the end.

I have seen it said that the Founding Fathers didn't have many books, but the ones they had they knew very well. I've also seen it said that one of the strongest influences on what would become our form of government was the writings of John Locke, particularly his Two Treatises of Government, written between 1680-1690. Locke was one of the first writers to embrace the notion of individual liberty and the state as a servent of the people rather than the reverse.

However Locke is not light reading, here's an example of his thoughts on tyrany for instance:

"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to.so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody canhave a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."

So now to my purpose. I want you to understand where the idea that the people might oppose a tyrant came from. If you can read this and not be stirred by it you are a much tougher nut than me.


Beginning at paragraph 201 " It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for wherever the power that is put in any hands for the goverment of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there is presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thuse use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."

"Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in autority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to sieze my person in the street may be oposed as a thief and a ribber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and suca a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. Andwhy this should not hold in the highest, as well in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasnable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers' portions? Or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbor? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceeding beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another witout authority is, that is a great aggravation of it. For exceeding te bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the worse in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethern."

[Mike03]

1. A topic of importance

I'm just now trying to educate myself more on the founding of the United States, reading a book called "American Creation" by Joseph Ellis.

These matters ARE important, IMHO, and there is a lot of desperately bad misleading information about how our nation was founded and upon which principles.

Thannks for sharing this. I hope I can find out more about Locke in the books I am reading.

[ThomWV]

3. My friend, here is a link for you

http://lonang.com/exlibris/locke/

It may be hubris for me to say this, but I think this may be the most important doucment you can read to understand the foundation of our Government.

[Mike03]

4. Thank you.

I will follow the link and save it as a bookmark.

[Mike03]

2. K and R, by the way. I love learning this stuff. NT

[spoony]

5. Thank you for that

"applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them"

Good people through the ages have recognised the danger posed by tyrants. And yet they gain power again and again. I wonder if we will ever learn the lesson once and for all.

[OneBlueSky]

6. liberals like to cite Locke's work, while conservatives tend more toward Thomas Hobbes . . .

whose famous observation in The Leviathan -- that lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" -- provided a philosophical basis for the social Darwinism that undergirds so much of conservative thinking . . .