khalling,

It has been some time since I dusted off my Locke. I pulled him from my library and went through my bookmarks and offer the following remarks for the benefit of those not versed and the discussion.

“An argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force.” Locke eliminated scripture and custom as justification, leaving only natural rights as legitimate basis for governance. This is the primary thrust of his work.
There is no natural political power, only that which has consent of the governed is legitimate. The natural condition of men is that of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. {You do not lose those natural property rights, the right to dispose of said property just because you enter society.}
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species…should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection. This is the basis for all of our rights and the only legitimate reduction or accommodation to civil society or the social contract are those to which we give tacit approval by our tolerance and our presence, since we are free to leave. This was his argument for the social contract, but he believed that the people have the right to establish and set the limits of the power of government and thus the rights the people saw proper to relinquish to the government for the sake of civil society. He stated however that when the government violated the peoples trust and exceeded the legitimate authority they granted, the state was at war with the people. Therefore the people have the right to throw off the government and regain all of their natural rights and if desirous rebuild a society from that basis. The only means he could find for the method of determination of what constituted the point at which a people should throw off tyrannical government was a democratic one (majority rule).

Locke’s arguments are interesting in that he was religious and he used scripture to counter erroneous religious arguments, but he saw religious freedom stemmed from natural rights; rights or, natural rights do not come from religion, or government. The foundation of his philosophy, the primary is therefore natural law. Mill’s On Liberty made many of the same arguments on the basis of natural rights without resorting to any religious arguments because he was clearly antagonistic towards any religious arguments and religion in general. Freedom of conscience was vital to both. For Mill it was for its own sake. For Locke it was for spiritual salvation.

So Objectivism is very much a modern atheistic cousin to Lockean philosophy with more definition and specificity. It is not at odds generally, and digs deeper for more solid foundation in areas Locke did not. Particularly in the area of ethics as the article makes note and more focus on minority rights, the ultimate minority being the individual. They still share much. I agree with the articles thesis. She expanded on the basis of the right to property and its definition, but the basics, the general premise was shared by Locke.

I find only one minor thing in the essay which I do not fully agree with or perhaps understand regarding Locke’s status as an empiricist. Why the following narrow definition?
“This is distinguished from empiricism which holds that man’s only source of knowledge is his sense without recourse to concepts.”
It seems to me that concepts and abstractions are products of the mind which may occur to an empiricist before or after empirical testing. An empiricist may have to rely upon concepts he has no empirical proof of until he has evidence in contradiction. Does this make one less than an empiricist if in your hierarchy of reason you still place empirical evidence when ascertainable above concepts? A concept is an idea, a thought, a generalized idea about a class of objects, an abstract notion, it can be an extrapolation based upon knowledge derived from sensory experience. I think an empiricist can fall back on concepts provided he is without sensory evidence to the contrary. He just can’t claim it to have empirical evidence or grant it the same gravity. I believe everyone must in those circumstances.

I have condensed and paraphrased Locke in some places above where possible without distorting meaning.

Well that’s my twenty five cents worth… inflation you know…
Respectfully,
O.A.

Okay....I could understand it! (I think...if I didn't 100% it sure isn't the fault of your husband's writing skills...well done!) My dictionary came in handy though.
I think it boils down to this Rand quote, "Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—and of self-protection. Reason is the most selfish human faculty: it has to be used in and by a man’s own mind, and its product—truth—makes him inflexible, intransigent, impervious to the power of any pack or any ruler. Deprived of the ability to reason, man becomes a docile, pliant, impotent chunk of clay, to be shaped into any subhuman form and used for any purpose by anyone who wants to bother."

Somewhere in Atlas she mentions something like ... you either have a love of life or you don't. Those who do will pursuit their own happiness and use their mind to do it and those who don't will use guilt and force to benefit from those who do, making the ones who love life their slaves. Property rights are either being stolen or taxed out of existence (which is another form of theft)... I'm not sure where I'm going with this, just thinking on the keyboard. I'm heading out for the day but I will mull this over some more while I'm out and about. Very interesting article and I will add Locke to my million mile reading list. :)
A Hank Rearden quote comes to mind, "It's MINE."

ok then, I'll just chat with myself.
"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world."
“Theory and Practice,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 138, Ayn Rand Lexicon
This is the only reference I can find where Rand wrote about Locke. Considering the blistering debate we have had this week on BORING patent rights, I find it essential to salt that discussion with this paper and Rand's analysis. (I am giving credit to LS for the use of the term "salt", which was an apt metaphor on another post)

If it wasn't counter productive I would point this down.

Oh huh, they offer the ultimate creep out factor, right up there with spiders and mayonnaise.

...hmmmm ...yes in that order. Voting liberals ARE sharks.