John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company)
That’s horrible, what a hypocrite.
When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.
Yes this is what I was asking for. Fantastic argument.
I think your book might be misleading with its commentary, the original passage doesn’t seem to reference Indigenous peoples.
Sect. 172. Thirdly, Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life, whenever he pleases. This is a power, which neither nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another; nor compact can convey: for man not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it; but it is the effect only of forfeiture, which the aggressor makes of his own life, when he puts himself into the state of war with another: for having quitted reason, which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, and the common bond whereby human kind is united into one fellowship and society; and having renounced the way of peace which that teaches, and made use of the force of war, to compass his unjust ends upon another, where he has no right; and so revolting from his own kind to that of beasts, by making force, which is their’s, to be his rule of right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by the injured person, and the rest of mankind, that will join with him in the execution of justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute, with whom mankind can have neither society nor security. And thus captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued: for what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life? what condition can he perform? and if he be once allowed to be master of his own life, the despotical, arbitrary power of his master ceases.He that is master of himself, and his own life, has a right too to the means of preserving it; so that as soon as compact enters, slavery ceases, and he so far quits his absolute power, and puts an end to the state of war, who enters into conditions with his captive.
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
In that situation, we have a right to end the war and then keep the combatants captive only until we can reintroduce the social contract and return their rights.
I’m thinking or post Civil War reconstruction and partly agreeing we needed to do a better job of shutting down those slavers.
Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn’t a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has “forfeited their rights” and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?
Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology?
In the way you describe, yes I missed that.
So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has “forfeited their rights” and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?
“Slave” is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.
If a person murders another, I do accept they have “forfeited their rights”, and that we should then use due process to try them of this crime, and if guilty they should be imprisoned (does that mean taking them as a slave?).
This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.
“Slave” is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.
It says that he is considered a wild beast with no rights and can be subject to ‘despotic power’. That sounds more like a slave than a prisoner. If he just meant prisoner, it would also mean that he opposes people being imprisoned in any context outside of war.
This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.
It certainly says slave labor is an acceptable use of these prisoners. Which makes sense given that the person saying it owned part of slaving company.
That’s horrible, what a hypocrite.
Yes this is what I was asking for. Fantastic argument.
I think your book might be misleading with its commentary, the original passage doesn’t seem to reference Indigenous peoples.
https://english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/LockeJohnSECONDTREATISE1690.pdf
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
In that situation, we have a right to end the war and then keep the combatants captive only until we can reintroduce the social contract and return their rights.
I’m thinking or post Civil War reconstruction and partly agreeing we needed to do a better job of shutting down those slavers.
Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn’t a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.
So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has “forfeited their rights” and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?
In the way you describe, yes I missed that.
“Slave” is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.
If a person murders another, I do accept they have “forfeited their rights”, and that we should then use due process to try them of this crime, and if guilty they should be imprisoned (does that mean taking them as a slave?).
This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.
It says that he is considered a wild beast with no rights and can be subject to ‘despotic power’. That sounds more like a slave than a prisoner. If he just meant prisoner, it would also mean that he opposes people being imprisoned in any context outside of war.
It certainly says slave labor is an acceptable use of these prisoners. Which makes sense given that the person saying it owned part of slaving company.