OCC CIV NOTES 11/3

Read Locke's Second Treatise for section

Regime in England may have been a failure essentially because it was a military coup, and remained military for some time
Cromwell's people who he put in charge were essentially his military friends, who were very unpopular with the population
-walked into areas around the country and started ruling
-abolished things like xmas and carnival
-very very unpopular

Cromwell's regime was AGAIN resisted by the republicans
-Cromwell's regime was essentially tyrannical, almost more so than the monarchy
-the single most prominent effect of the regicide was a huge support for royalism
-people started comparing life under the royalty to life under Cromwell, realized that Cromwell just sucks
As soon as Cromwell dies in 1660 (or within 2 years), EVERYTHING is put back into place
-royalty, bishops, other religious and secular hierarchy, carnival culture all reestablished
-they ended up giving even more power to the king
-in the years after the execution of the king, people start to say that the king gets his power directly from God, king is accountable to nobody else
-essentially James VI and I's views

Sir Robert Filmer wrote Patriarcha, ended up being the key text supporting monarchical superiority
-filmer says that king's power is from god alone, and to god alone is he accountable
-patriarchal power is also royal (father over his family)
-if this is so, then Adam (first man) is the king of all men, as he's the father of all men
-Adam is Father, King, and Lord
-all kings are simply descendants of Adam
-Adam was Monarch of the whole world, people only owned things by his grace
-Eve was Adam's subject ('He shall rule over thee')
-Monarchy was the first government on earth
-monarchy MUST BE ABSOLUTE
-no such thing as tyranny, no such thing as just resistance
-parliament only exists by the grace of the monarchy
-monarchy existed before parliament, therefore it was better
-everybody born after Adam (everybody) was born a slave, but for his grace
-Adam owned all property as king, therefore all contemporary kings owned all the property in the land
-basically, you own things at his pleasure, and he can take shit from you whenever
-'a son, a subject, a slave are but one. there is no such thing as tyranny'
-even more radical than James VI and I

Locke's First and Second treatise were written in response to filmer
-first treatise is a direct response
-2nd is less direct, but a response nonetheless
-there are 3 central contentions by locke
-the right of resistance to tyranny is reserved to the people at all times
-more liberal than some who believed that only certain people could resist
-the possibility of resistance is straightforward a RIGHT, not a DUTY
-huge difference there from others, who believed that it was the 'duty' to have a godly society
-right of resistance is treated as a possession of each and every individual
-humans were originally free, transferred sovereignty to governments AT THEIR PLEASURE, can resist at any point at all
predecessors of Locke
-buchanan
-john mayor
-jacque almach (sp?)

we read locke now as an exponent of classical liberalism
-we should know what liberalism is.... yay IP
-limited govt
-avoidance of arbitrary power
-sanctity of private property
-responsibilities of individuals for their own fates
-humans are born in a state of perfect freedom, a state of equality
-is totally AGAINST arbitrary power
-also has the big three- life, property, pursuit of happiness
-jefferson loved this guy

locke wrote this in a period with MAJOR censorship
-people would be hanged, drawn, and quartered for other censored materials
-for making similar arguments, other writers were actually executed
-locke had to flee to the netherlands to save himself from execution
-wrote anonymously

who was locke?
-he was a gentleman, and extremely proud of it
-absentee land owner, lived for most of his life off of the rent
-he was a speechwriter and political analyst at one point
-would advise an Earl on his reading, what he should read to be educated, etc
-argued that the problem of the poor in society was simply because of the lack of discipline and manners
-did this while he served on the board of trade during the 1690s
-argued that the poor were just pretending to be unable to work, would put them in labor camps on the ports or throw them in jail
-children should be whipped if begging outside their parish, women incarcerated and forced into labor for the same offense
-thing is, these sorts of things were so common in the day that he was actually reducing the number of such punishments
-except that he removes age restrictions on corporal punishment, is the first to advocate wholesale incarceration of the poor and elderly
-his entire philosophy is based on manual labor rather than education
-lets go back to the 1660s, before he wrote his treatises
-he aided in the drafting of the carolina colony
-was explicit in restricting the democracy in the colony
-established a hereditary monarchical society, with a parliament made of landowners
-provided for 'leet men' (haha), essentially serfs bound to the land
-believed that it was a bad thing for men who were poor to write laws that would affect the rich, or even themselves
-established that slaveowners could dictate their slaves religions
-was a stockholder in the royal africa company (brought slaves back and forth)
-locke in even his treatises was that slavery was OK in the case that the person had participated in an 'unjust war'
-did NOT support hereditary slavery

so how did Locke become a supporter of resistance?
-1678-81 -> there was a huge debate in parliament over whether to exclude the brothers of the king from succession
-why? because the king's brother was catholic, and the parliament believed that the protestants would be executed by him
-king refused
-parliament AND the people (led by the whigs) kept demanding to exclude him
-the Whigs started to debate over what the powers of the king were, Whigs wanted to limit it, Tories wanted to expand it
-King decides to try and rule by himself, without parliament (because they were just getting annoying)
-Charles II (the king at the time) actually had the money to rule without parliament, so it might actually work!
-but this isnt all the king wants
-wants to get rid of his opponents, also ensure that he could call a parliament that would be favorable to him
-did this by just not letting his opponents vote
-changed also the method of appointment of juries to be more favorable to him
-essentially just buttfucks the republican system
-essentially, the king is able to decide who he wants to try and execute, and can do so
-attempts to try and execute the earl of chaffsbury
-initially the jury was pro-Earl, didnt let him get tried and/or executed
-the king just changed the juries again
-locke in the 2nd treatise essentially demands rule by LAW, not by FIAT
-first argument made was that men join political society to 'punish with a fair determination of law'
-read the second treatise
-people could resist if they feared that tyranny could be imposed
-called what the king was doing to the Earl 'perverted law'
-at the center of his concerns was the power of the king to execute the king's opponents
-essentially, locke wasn't his huge liberal idealist, he just doesnt want to get killed
-he has a vested interest in the social hierarchy
-the real reason he has for opposing absolute monarchy is essentially because the king is trying to execute his patron, and will probably kill him well
-'the threat of execution tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully'
-to make the case, he generalizes
-argues for large numbers of non-specific rights
-'life, liberty, and property'
-there are ways to defend these rights, as well as others
-still believes that servants, slaves can exist
-argues that labor creates a large amount of value, but should not necessarily be rewarded with the full value
-work isnt for the laborer
-the function of government is to protect property
-preserves massive inequality in property and wealth
-if you fail to work the land, we can come and take it
-justification for taking the lands of indians
-does locke give the right to resist when gov't is NOT tyrannical?
-not really, no
-does locke guarantee the right to franchise?
-again, nope
-locke's arguments are those of resistance to, not participation in government
-argues that men should rule because they are 'abler and stronger'
-believed that if you talked about natural rights, you'd have to find ways to strip women and children of rights