What do you think of the book? Would you recommend it to others?
Personally, I find Locke's writing difficult because its old and non-translated.
Nonetheless, I think it is especially interesting from a U.S. perspective considering the influence of Locke's ideas of consent by the governed and equality of man at least in the lip service paid by the rebels and the basic political philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Personally, whether one agrees with them nearly wholly or just in part, I think Locke's writings create a historical philosophically political justification for revolution against any government but self-government.
What do you think?
What do you think of the following quote from the Second Treatise:
I think that quote can provide a poetic justification for the use of defensive violence. But it frightens me in that I think it could also be interpreted to support vengeance for vengeance sake, represented politically in draconian legal codes and harsh totalitarian regimes. Of course, the comparison to dangerous animals leads me to the former interpretation; who would want to get revenge for revenge sake on an animal, i.e. punishing it not to protect people and not as training but for vengeance?John Locke wrote:A criminal who, having renounced reason ... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.