A big tip of the hat to TheBlaze and the author of this piece for beating me to the punch with this one.
Paul Ryan made a bold move during his acceptance speech when he made it clear that equal opportunity and equal outcome are not the same thing. What's more, he used language that many in our almost completed -Year Zero society have never heard or were gutsy enough to mention.
In addition to referring to American exceptionalism (By noting that the US was founded on an idea) in an era in which omerta is enforced on such talk, he employed concepts advanced by John Locke, one of the greatest influences on the Founding Fathers and other early American Revolutionaries.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/our-rights-come-from-nature-and-god-not-government-paul-ryan-channels-philosopher-john-locke-in-announcement-speech/
“But America is more than just a place…it’s an idea. It’s the only country founded on an idea.Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. This idea is founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the governed."
I am not leaving out Rousseau ("The just consent of the governed) or Montesquieu as possibilities for inspirational sources for Ryan, but his inclusion of free enterprise clearly speaks of the right to property, the preservation of which Locke repeatedly stresses as being the primary reason for people leaving the State of Nature and entering into a governed society in the first place.
The video clip of Ryan's speech where he makes that quote can be accessed on the TheBlaze link above. That article also contains other quotes from Locke concerning both the reasons for the establishment of Governments and the creation of new governments when the current one loses its right to govern by continued acts of oppression and the failure to properly respond to legitimate grievances of the people.
I cannot strongly enough recommend that all read Locke's First and Second Treatises on Government. They are inexpensive. Used book retailers such a Allibris.com often offer used books for as little as $0.99 plus shipping. If you have an e-reader, they can be purchased for $2.99-$3.99 (Or maybe less by now). I prefer to have both. I can highlight the text on the e-reader and keep the book unmarked. This also ensures that I still have the book if I damage the e-reader.
I hope to do a post soon on my thoughts on Locke's work soon. It is clearly the product of an incredibly bright man who was willing to challenge the established views of many of his time, such as Hobbes.*
-A good source for contrasting the views of Locke to those of Hobbes. Although he argued for monarchical power, Hobbes would be the hands-down choice for Marxists.
To depart from the more well-known views of Locke, I note the following:
We live in an age in which Leftists desire to control people in every facet of life, and in some cases the very act or right of continuing to live. "Ethicists" have called for "after birth abortion" which is the infanticide** of disabled children under the age of two months to two years. The elderly have become subject to requirements that they defend their right to receive necessary medical treatments. The Left has also warmly embraced the concept of legalized suicide and has been supportive of such measures.
Locke made certain assertions that ring true today when we consider the above.. He noted that people cannot sign away their natural rights, and even less those of their descendants, to arbitrary rule, anymore than they have the right to take their own lives. He makes this point several times in his Treatises. In fact, Locke so clearly connects the prohibition of taking one's own life to the impossibility of signing away his freedom that I cannot but help but think here we find the reason why the Left is so supportive of legalized and assisted suicide, euthanasia, and post-birth murder of infants. If we give in and agree to letting people kill themselves without our interference, go back to barbaric infanticide, and start killing off the elderly since they cannot effectively contribute to society to the satisfaction of the Statists, then what logical arguments do we have to insist that we remain free from far-reaching oppression?
We have already signed away the rights of the unborn in most of the West, but the Left is not done with us.
I submit that Locke would hold that, in the event that we have reached that point (Having signed away the rights of people to be protected even from themselves) then we ourselves have no logical defense of our right to be free. The Left may have excised the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and all of the classics of history from our the curricula of our schools to keep us ignorant of the foundations of Western Civilization, but I have no doubt that the prime movers of Leftist thought have read them. They knew fully well where they had to go to eliminate piece-by-piece the bricks that built the foundations of our culture.
Wonderful analysis. I was trying to create something like this but you beat me to the punch.
ReplyDeleteOf course the left will reject Locke. They always have. They, like the French revolutionaries and Marx, would say that Hobbes is the one to follow. The French, Soviets, Khmer Rouge and others followed him right into the grave. Will we follow them or will be get back to our Lockeian roots? It is a clear choice, clearly articulated by Ryan.