Renaissance: Hobbes, Machiaveli & Locke - Part 2

On matters now concerning primarily Locke's philosophy, it is perhaps right to consider him as a far more influential and resonant figure in comparison to both Machiavelli and Hobbes put together. As Russell comments:

"From the time of Locke down to the present day, there have been in Europe two main types of philosophy...these owes both its doctrines and its method to Locke..."

Indeed, in Locke's Two Treatises on Government and Essay Concerning Human Understanding, his views perhaps on consideration are not as overly as objectionable or as outdated Machiavelli and Hobbes presented their views. With much of his opinions centred around the capitalist and neither the middle or lower classes, property itself was the key theme in Locke's doctrine. In one of his statements, he suggests: "The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths; and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property..." Considering Hobbes again, this completely turns on its head the idea a sovereign (or a king) should decide who is granted property. On the other hand, the Divine Right of Kings fell to the fact of constant conflict between King, aristocracy and middle classes. Locke's views on property are much rather like that of Machavelli's though, as his ideas that a Prince should not inflict damage to another man's property ring very much true here. It can of course perhaps be thought, as the economic climate stands in America at the moment, Locke and his followers fixiation with property has only led to much misery for the non-capitalist. It would be difficult to wholeheartedly agree with much of this philosophy as Locke regarded any man without property to never be classed as citizens. At one point, I believe Russell implied that it was almost impossible for a man to be born and avoid citizenship, no matter how much you despise their politics. Can it be said for those 9 million unemployed?

As much as capitalism seems to be declining in terms of working effectively for every citizen (except the bankers), Locke was said to be the founder of "philosophical liberalism". In benefiting the state of the people, it would involve social contracts, a government who serves the needs and legislature of those people and a promise for uprisings if government does not meet their side of the bargin. However in England, we both have a constitutional monarch who still holds symbolic powers and two houses of the legislature, which in Locke's ideology does not work. We are therfore, perhaps rather unfortunately, closer to Hobbes's ideal of a "Covenant" rather than a social contract. In a ideal world, avoiding war is perhaps just an ideal. Government rule on a minority, as a majority, which as can be seen in modern day America, Locke's "Leader of the Free World" seems to be falling on the same mantra the country was created: "Guns, guts and glory". As perhaps many people have witnissed earlier this year, Capitol Hill became a free-for-all circus this year as Obama was defeated in the face of a a few far-right congressmen who executed the spending cuts on public services, without any risk of further taxation on the typical citizen. 2012 is going to be a rocky year ahead for the democrats...

Without any reason of ultimnate power: Machiavelli's Prince, Hobbes's monarch and Locke's civil government, people are rebelling regardless of the authority of these figures. If, as according these news headlines, the world is rebelling, we are perhaps returning to a state of nature much more closer than it was once concieved post-WWII: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15320416

On another note, it may not last very long either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796