Great news, Jodi. How timely to be teaching political science in Alberta. No doubt you'll inspire your students with lively debates on the role of government -- and your readers here as well. Thanks for the podcast tip!
Thanks so much, Margaret, and I agree: quite a time to be back in Berta. Love our class discussions so far. With class two the day after Charlie Kirk's assassination, we've had to take on some heavy questions already.
Sure glad you enjoyed Nathan—he has shifted my thinking also. And I really appreciate your encouragement on the podcast! Thank you so much. I’m still using your comment — the ‘non left’ — that you shared when you were on. Thanks again for presenting such a thoughtful, smart, and winsome side of the non left. 🙏
I hear you use that comment, Shawn, and with such exalted guests no less! Happy to give you the term.
Appreciated our conversation as well, my first introduction to your podcast. I should have mentioned that too. I've heard so many since, I had almost forgotten that we spoke too.
I dunno Jay, the world still has plenty of fights about a God people think exist. My issue is less with that piece than with points of Locke's theory that may make what now prevails more late liberalism than post-liberalism.
The assumption that government serves enlightened self-interest might create citizens who are into preserving their life and property, sure, but not quite up to defending their liberty.
I fear that the idea that gov't serves enlightened self-interest ceased to fit the facts about the moment that public choice theory was invented back in the 1940's. Locke could not have anticipated things like teachers' unions and their pernicious effects on bodies politic.
In a sense, Locke made the assumption that the "enlightened" part of self interest would be driven by individuals striving to, in their own way, do God's will. What we have ended up with are assorted claques suggesting that "enlightenment" is for their rent seeking to prevail. And I could make the argument that this is because they have entirely ceased to believe that God a) exists, b) could give a rat's ass.
My recollection of Locke, albeit across 40 years, is that he took God and God's will as central to his arguments as to individual rights and the proper organization of the State.
I suspect citizens are not quite up to defending their liberty because they no longer can actually bring themselves to believe in "yet they have, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, viz. to judge, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven.”
They don't think God will hear them....and they may be right.
Ye of little faith Jay ;) Interesting note you make there about how seriously he took appeal to heaven as the basis of his argument for the right of resistance.
Reading him again (albeit with a jaundiced eye) I do sense also a rhetorical purpose behind his quoting of Scripture, something Locke seems to do most frequently when he's making his most controversial points. I'm thinking he was aiming at his own audience and did have a revolution to justify in this.
We'll get to the teachers unions this week with Rousseau.
Great news, Jodi. How timely to be teaching political science in Alberta. No doubt you'll inspire your students with lively debates on the role of government -- and your readers here as well. Thanks for the podcast tip!
Thanks so much, Margaret, and I agree: quite a time to be back in Berta. Love our class discussions so far. With class two the day after Charlie Kirk's assassination, we've had to take on some heavy questions already.
Sure glad you enjoyed Nathan—he has shifted my thinking also. And I really appreciate your encouragement on the podcast! Thank you so much. I’m still using your comment — the ‘non left’ — that you shared when you were on. Thanks again for presenting such a thoughtful, smart, and winsome side of the non left. 🙏
I hear you use that comment, Shawn, and with such exalted guests no less! Happy to give you the term.
Appreciated our conversation as well, my first introduction to your podcast. I should have mentioned that too. I've heard so many since, I had almost forgotten that we spoke too.
The Social contract. Would have loved to have a in depth study and discussion of the theory. Maybe in retirement if I ever get there lol
It's never too late to brush up on social contract theory ;)
Can't wait to see what you make of Locke in a world where his most basic concept, the existence of God, no longer enjoys much purchase.
I dunno Jay, the world still has plenty of fights about a God people think exist. My issue is less with that piece than with points of Locke's theory that may make what now prevails more late liberalism than post-liberalism.
The assumption that government serves enlightened self-interest might create citizens who are into preserving their life and property, sure, but not quite up to defending their liberty.
I fear that the idea that gov't serves enlightened self-interest ceased to fit the facts about the moment that public choice theory was invented back in the 1940's. Locke could not have anticipated things like teachers' unions and their pernicious effects on bodies politic.
In a sense, Locke made the assumption that the "enlightened" part of self interest would be driven by individuals striving to, in their own way, do God's will. What we have ended up with are assorted claques suggesting that "enlightenment" is for their rent seeking to prevail. And I could make the argument that this is because they have entirely ceased to believe that God a) exists, b) could give a rat's ass.
My recollection of Locke, albeit across 40 years, is that he took God and God's will as central to his arguments as to individual rights and the proper organization of the State.
I suspect citizens are not quite up to defending their liberty because they no longer can actually bring themselves to believe in "yet they have, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, viz. to judge, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven.”
They don't think God will hear them....and they may be right.
Ye of little faith Jay ;) Interesting note you make there about how seriously he took appeal to heaven as the basis of his argument for the right of resistance.
Reading him again (albeit with a jaundiced eye) I do sense also a rhetorical purpose behind his quoting of Scripture, something Locke seems to do most frequently when he's making his most controversial points. I'm thinking he was aiming at his own audience and did have a revolution to justify in this.
We'll get to the teachers unions this week with Rousseau.