Does any one know about the foundations of the European states? in the1600s?

Question

I am refereing to the thirty years wars and the Political theory of hoobes and locke? What were they reffering to and what does it mean??

Answer 1

Hobbes was a traditionalist of his time--he supported and argued for the view that prevailed in many other countries that the "state" was centered in the person of the sovereign (king or queen). The athority of the king was the basis for the ligitimacy of the state and the power delegated by the sovereign to his (her in the rare case of a queen). To a great extent, Hobbes based his arguement on the idea of "the divine right of kings" and tradition. His view--what historians call the "absolutist" view, prevailed in most European states--notably France. King Louis IV summed this up perfectly in his comment "I am the state."

John Locke was a radical. His view was that a government--any government--was created by men for the purpose of ensuring good social order and freedom to the citizenry--and that the legitimacy of a government derived from the consent of the governed. He also argued that a government had as its purpose to protect and promote the life and liberty and the pursuit of property on the part of the citizens. A democratic body of citizens were thus the basis of the states authority.

If this sounds suspiciously like the wording of the US Declaration of Independance, that's not by chance. The stirring statement of political principle that opens the Declaration was largely borrowed by Thomas Jefferson from Locke's writings. Jefferson changed some of the wording (pursuit of happieness instead of property) but the Delecration is essentially a summary of Lockian political philosophy.

Granted, Locke did not envision the sort of universal democracy we have today--in which everyone has the right to vote--and as radical as he was, he would have been schocked by the extent of civil liberty today--or even of the radical nature of some of the provisions of the US Constitution written just 100 years after he did most of his important work. But don't be mislead by that. Locke was among the most far-sighted--and powerful--proponents of human freedom who has ever lived--and the fact that he, like all of us, labored under the assumptions and limits of his own culture should not detract from his profound contributions.

BTW--not to disparage Hobbes--but his ideas were essentially a reaffirmation of the existingstatus quo--Locke was the innovator. And Locke's contributions were not limited to the above--he did important work with respect to the idea of religious freedom, education, and epistimology (theory of knowledge) and was a close associate of many other figures of his time--most notably Isaac Newton. He also authored the colonial charter of South Carolina--a document that contains some of the earliest efforts to incorporate protection of civil liberties.

Locke's work was most important in his own time with respect to the "Glorious Revolution of 1688" in which the then English (and pro-Catholic) James II was deposed in favor of a Protestant monarch. But to understand the real meaning of this--it was less about religion than about politics. At the time, Rome (the Holy Roman Empire) and Spain were powerful politically-and in a very real sense being a Catholic meant owing POLITICAL allegience to the Pope--and for the English (especially Protestants) that amounted to being loyal to a hostile power. Thus, placing a Protestant king on the throne was less about religion than about establishing England's political independance.

Locke did much to explicate this--but went much further. Going back to the Magna Carta, he did much to incorporate the notion of the "rights of Englishman" as being "rights" and not merely privileges that could be granted or taken away by an arbitrary monarch. Those concepts laid much of th efoundation for democratic and constitutional government in Britain as well as America.

OK, I'll sut up now! :)