What does Sup Forums think about john locke

What do you think ?

He was a sophist, ultimately. Natural rights are a meme.

Liberal sonova bitch faggot.

Are we sure this guy wasn't a crypto-Jew? Look at that nose.

*blocks your positive view of humanity*

liberal asswipe

just another autistic anglo faggot
all intellectuals are parasites

One of the mos prolific thinkers during the American revolution. Sadly, he died a drunken homeless bum in NYC. Gravesite currently unknown.

>t. bogtrotting intellectual

Genius. He changed the world for the better.

He had good points but ultimately paved the argument for Marx so I don't like him that much

>In favor of non-interventionist government and separated powers
Sup Forums hates him because he's not a totalitarian fascist.

aaaand right on cue! Of course Sup Forums would love mr. "All forms of government are legit because it's better than no government" more than one of the two men who actually offered a viable solution to that problem.

>He had good points but ultimately paved the argument for Marx
Go on. Seriously, go on. This is the first time I've heard this said about Locke. Normally people say this about Rousseau and it's just as stupid when they do that, considering Marx quoted neither of them.

archaic numale

Locke said essentially that everything was better before money was invented because then there was no scarcity
Marx picked that up and said well if we want to have a state of being where everyone is happy we need to abolish money and thus also scarcity
This line of causality is utterly wrong but the communist thought of the happy world without money and material wealth came from Locke

>Locke said essentially that everything was better before money was invented because then there was no scarcity
Citation needed. Locke never said that. Rousseau said *something* like that, but even then you're grossly misrepresenting (misunderstanding?) the point. Rousseau did not imply that this was a post-scarcity society, but he analyzed the State of Nature as being that of total freedom because government wasn't a thing. That's also why he wished that the moment some fool fenced off a piece of land and claimed "this is mine", that others would simply pull those fences out of the earth and overthrow it. Rousseau did believe that in the State of Nature the earth belonged to all, but he didn't mean this as some post-scarcity communist utopia. He meant it in the sense that there were no governments and individual liberty was limitless. That's also why in the first book of Du Contrat Social he keeps ramming on this idea of "might makes right" and keeps asking why we even obey our governments in the first place. He delegitimizes contemporary governments based on the fact that they limit liberty and offer next to nothing in return and judges that, because only an insane man would sell his own liberty, there must be a case of "might makes right" reasoning. But "might makes right" means that there's no right if there's no might. It's compulsion, not legitimacy. This is also why Rousseau later on in his most influential work tries to legitimize the government through the rule of all (res publica) and elaborates on the social contract, the volonté général (as opposed to the volonté de tous, which is more or less the dictatorship of the majority) et cetera.

There's nothing in Locke that even implies anything like socialism, and the only links you can draw between Rousseau and socialism are based on ignorance. You're especially ignorant, as you're ignorant even by the standards of the ignorant.

Pretty great guy. The alt right hate him. He was pro liberty, freedom, capitalism, etc.

>There's nothing in Locke that even implies anything like socialism, and the only links you can draw between Rousseau and socialism are based on ignorance. You're especially ignorant, as you're ignorant even by the standards of the ignorant.
You utter meme flag retard I never mentioned Rousseau even once
And I never said that Locke says socialism is good, he just made a point that Marx picked up and I think the point is wrong

>You utter meme flag retard I never mentioned Rousseau even once
Yes, I mentioned him. Because that's the author I've seen connected to socialism and I've literally NEVER seen anyone lay links between Locke and Socialism. That's why I mentioned Rousseau.

>he just made a point that Marx picked up
Once again, mention that point. Preferably with references, because I still think you're mixing up Locke and Rousseau. That state of nature you misrepresent sounds a lot more like Rousseau's than Locke's (especially considering Locke is less concerned with the state of nature than either Rousseau or Hobbes).

He was a homosex that enjoyed feeling like a dirty bitch and used to fuck men in the pub for a few thrupence

You don't seem to know the literature buddy so wtf are you doing in this thread?
I'm not gonna spoonfeed you with quotations, go to a library and read his state of nature in his two treatises of government, you'll see for yourself

>What's your opinion on X?
>He said Y!
>I've never heard anyone claim he said Y, care to provide a citation?
>You can't prove he didn't say Y! Go look for a citation of Y yourself!
That's not how burden of proof works. You posit so you prove.

Locke was great.