Locke the revelator: how john Locke defined modern freedom.

Although I do not agree with John Locke on all points, he was and remains an important and respectable political thinker. Here is a reflection on some of the innovations he offered political thought, with some slightly radical secondary analysis by myself.

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke radically redefines the rights and freedom of the common man. However, some of the more radical sentiments of Locke’s philosophy seem opaque; hidden by a geniality intended to soften the blows delivered to Locke’s contemporary audience, or conversely, lost on modern readers who have lived in a society which has reaped the freedoms of his principles for hundreds of years. In either case, this work will attempt to prove the stated thesis; that Locke radically redefined the rights and freedom of man- primarily through a reconstruction of his arguments (in Ch. 2-4 Second Treatise), and through minor, relevant side analysis.

“Freedom, being the foundation of the rest...”

We first must understand what freedom means to John Locke. Locke opens the second chapter of the Second Treatise with a direct definition of freedom.  According to Locke, men are naturally in a “...State 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...depending upon any other man (Ch.2, P4).”  This is to say that naturally, man is free to do anything he wishes with himself or his property, outside of killing oneself, and that man MUST be self reliant to be free. Self reliance is crucial, for as Locke will argue, to live reliant upon the will of any other man is indeed slavery (more detail on this to come). Man may not destroy himself because of the responsibilities Locke assigns to freedom. Man has a responsibility to rationality, reason, self reliance and to self preservation. When it does not conflict with his own needs, man should assist to “preserve the rest of mankind (Ch.2 P6).” Man has a responsibility to not harm another man unless to do justice to another who would harm the life, liberty, or property of another man- in this case, man has a responsibility to administer justice. Locke’s ideal of freedom gives the individual much more personal freedom than any thinker of the past, but it imbues upon the individual the cost of constant vigilance in preservation of self. 

In order to explain how man is naturally free, Locke creates what today’s social scientists might call an ideal typology: The State of Nature, and The State of War. These states are ideal in that no one actually lives through a perfect version of the state of nature (or war) as Locke writes, but that these states are examples used to illustrate Locke’s argument. 

First, Locke’s State of Nature- To Locke man is in a natural state of perfect freedom (as described above) and equality. Freedom to do as he pleases (within natural bounds) and equality,  “All power and jurisdiction being reciprocal, no one having more than another (Ch.2 P4)...” Freedom is clearly of fundamental importance to Locke in the state of nature- We must be free to do as we wish in nature, equality as Locke sees it merely explains man’s relation to one another. This state of nature is one of self reliance, natural personal sovereignty, and freedom- in stark contrast to arguments that one man had a natural right of dominion over all others. This State of nature completely refutes the notion of the divine right of monarchs.

The State of War then, as Locke sees it arrises of the inconveniences of the State of Nature, and as a result of clashes of self interest. To Locke, reason must be our guide in behaving in the state of nature- reason is in fact, the Law of Nature. Reason dictates that man must act to preserve himself, and any man who’s actions hinder another’s abilities to preserve oneself acts against reason, and puts himself  “in a state of war (Ch.3 P16).” An aggressor in this state of war may attempt to steal from, harm, or kill another man, to which Locke would say it is “lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can...(Ch.3 P18).” To this extent, Locke has set up the most rudimentary form of crime and punishment- the right to defend and protect oneself from an aggressor by any means deemed appropriate and necessary. 

Perhaps the worst aggression against a man in the State of Nature, according to Locke however, would be one who attempts to put himself into absolute power over another man. To Locke, any man who would attempt to gain absolute power over another would surely enslave him, and dispose of his life at his leisure, and has declared war. To Locke, this man must be killed- he is a deadly enemy of freedom, the most essential tool of self preservation. This ideal was so radical for its time when applied to the current state of society- it calls for complete intolerance of those who would take your freedom, it calls into question the entire proposition of monarchy. Some might even argue that it calls upon free men to kill the king! (Although not quite as radical as quasi-contemporary Denis Diderot “Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest”, this is truly revolutionary thinking.) John Locke calls upon men to be ready to kill for their freedom.

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation that he cannot part with it...No body can give more power than he has himself; and he cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it (Ch.4 p23).” Although Locke references slavery with this passage, it seems clear that this argument was made to further obliterate the notion of divine sovereignty, and to emphasize the incredible importance of self reliance and personal liberty. Because we must naturally preserve ourselves, it follows that we must never allow ourselves to be enslaved, to lose our natural freedom would be akin to death. So much so, that Locke seems to make an exception to his suicide taboo: “For whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, ‘tis in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires (Ch.4 P23 emphasis mine).” One could say that “master” in this passage is code for “king,” and that Locke is calling for revolution; for even if it failed, man would die attempting to preserve or regain, his freedom.

Throughout the rest of the Treatise, Locke explains the necessity of property rights, parental duty and responsibility, and the ordination of civil government and law. Importantly, Locke defines legitimate political power in very limited scope- Law and government’s sole functions according to Locke are to secure the rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect those freedoms from those who would act without reason and endanger that liberty. However, without the revolutionary, reasoned notions of self interest, self preservation, and liberty, we wouldn’t be able to discuss Locke’s ideal government. For as Locke said, it is “Freedom, being the foundation for the rest...” Without Freedom, there is nothing.

Morality and extension of life

It seems in our world that death is regarded as the greatest evil there is. All sorts of groups from atheists to the devout, moral philosophers to drunks at the bar, usually agree on one thing: None of them want to die, and death in general is a bad thing. We live our lives with a distinct fear of death, and though death is inevitable, great pains are taken to insure that we live as long as possible. But, is this a good thing? I will contend that it is in fact not a very good thing, and a myriad of reasons and arguments can be illustrated to drive the point home. I will provide an outline of two here.

First, we’ll briefly look at the issue from the vantage of loved ones and the terminally ill. John Hardwig, in “Is There a Duty to Die?” really sums up the points of this argument quite tidily, so I will only summarize his argument. Some claim that the suffering individual is already ill, and this is burden enough; to ask this person to take on the burden to cease life is too much. But this ill individual does not cease to be accountable to family and loved ones the moment they become critically ill. There are, sadly, many cases where prolonging the life of a family member can destroy the quality of life for the family the ill person will inevitably leave behind- the cost of care can destroy careers, cost the family its home, defer the dreams and hope of the children perhaps to the point of unattainability, and create emotional stresses and duress. These burdens must be considered by the ill person.

Avoiding the arguments for and against a patient’s right to terminate his or her own life through euthanasia or stop treatments, I offer one more less explored point. Hardwig briefly touches on this point in the introductory passages of his piece, but it deserves more consideration. Modern medicine has reached a point where it can prolong lives much longer than in generations past. Is this a good thing? would most people in their right minds really want to live to the point of delirium and incapacity? I would think not. Would these people then want society, their loved ones, and their medical care providers to have to sacrifice their time, services, and perhaps dreams, on their artificially preserved shell of a body? I would think not.  

These medical “miracles” are going to turn into monsters in our life time. The governments of the world have spent little time preparing for the explosion in the geriatric population that is going to rush onto us in the coming two decades. Our entitlement programs, social programs, and healthcare industry are likely to bit hit blindsided by this influx of elderly people. Whereas before an individual could have been allowed to make a rational, reasoned, moral choice regarding the end of their lives, we may well see (and in some cases already are seeing) insurance providers denying treatments to older clients to make way for younger healthier clients. Rather than allowing patients the right to self determination in their end of life scenario- one in which they can carefully examine the quality of life they would continue to live and the quality of life for those around them, these choices are being put in the hands of suits in office buildings who benefit from slashing costs, not providing compassionate care. Is this the morally correct course between the two choices?

Quick Thought: Democracy in Tunisia and Egypt

I've avoided writing on the subject of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings for a number of reasons. One, I didn't want to speak to soon. It seemed prudent to let things sort themselves out and then reflect on them after. Second, I honestly haven't had the time to follow the issue very closely.

But, a professor of mine recently made a remark: "The tunisian and egyptian uprisings seem to have vindicated the Bush foreign policy of supporting democracy in the Middle East. Would these event have occurred had America not taken the stance it had leading to the Iraq war? Would they have been successful any other way?"

Its an interesting question. I'm not one to support many things George W. Bush advocated. But, did the Bush doctrine have an inevitably positive effect on the political climate in the Middle East? I'm not sure yet, so I will leave that question to you. What do you think?

JFK (pt. 6 0f 6)

But why go to the trouble to set Lee Harvey Oswald? If he wasn’t the assassin, who was he really? Who set him up? Who actually had the motive, opportunity, and ability to commit the crime of the century? 

Some theorists claim that the mafia are likely candidates. Not so. Sure, Bobby and Jack Kennedy had connections to, and had burned bridges with the mob. But, the mob simply didn’t have the resources to cover up the evidence, didn’t have the ability to frame oswald, much less get him in and out of Russia with ease, and finally, politicians were off limits to the mafia. You could buy or blackmail government, but you could never kill government. The crackdown on the mafia resulting from their killing of Kennedy would have decimated the mob. The mafia had been employed as contract mercenaries to kill off  Fidel Castro, but this was under the direct supervision of the CIA and other covert operations, and it would only be as employees of such an organization, or elements within it, that any individuals in the mob would consider involving themselves in such a risky, high profile murder.

Lyndon Johnson wouldn’t have had Kennedy bumped off- far too great a risk of discovery, and out of character, according to most credible peers and historians. (Holland) The Jimmy Hoffa/ Teamsters angle holds little water. Groups like the Texas oil Barons or Cuban exiles had plenty of motive, but they, like the mob would need sponsorship from somewhere in the intelligence community.Indeed, all likely candidates seem to lead right to our intelligence community’s doorstep. 

Kennedy desired to cool cold war tensions, had signed the test ban treaty, had made secret overtures to Nikita Kruschev  to peacefully end the cuban missile crisis (his military advisers were begging him to nuke Cuba), planned to withdraw from vietnam, and had refused to back the CIA’s ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion with air support. After the Bay of Pigs he beheaded the CIA- removing founders Allen Dulles, Charles Cabell, and Richard Bissell. This “gang of three” had been big shots in the banking industry and with their histories in the OSS and CIA, had obviously cultivated close ties with defense industry insiders. Their firings, Kennedy’s policy decisions, and the causes he championed in his speeches- peace, prosperity, and understanding between the USA and the USSR meant that what was once a very profitable cold war was about to become a hell of a lot less profitable- in fact, some probably feared that it would come to an end all together.  Kennedy’s refusal to assist the Bay of Pigs invaders had left many anti-Castro cubans, the mercenaries , and CIA operators who fought so vehemently feel betrayed, and some wanted to taste Kennedy’s blood for it. For these reasons, small, reactionary, right-wing factions within our government and defense industry converged and committed the crime of century.

So where does Lee Harvey Oswald fit into this elaborate conspiracy? CIA agent James Wilcott testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald was a double agent working for american intelligence when he was stationed at El Toro Air Force base while in the Marines. The HSCA chose to ignore this testimony. (Marrs, 104) In 1959, the year Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, the US had engaged a counter intelligence program involving up to 40 men- these men would pretend to renounce their citizenship, go to  the Soviet Union, and become double agents. (Marrs, 117) Does this sound familiar? The implication that Oswald was a double agent suddenly makes all sorts of loose ends tie together. Why did the state department let him back into the country after his treason? Why was he not prosecuted? Why was J. Edgar Hoover concerned that someone was using his ID while he was in the USSR? Why circulate so many dopplegangers of Oswald?  Why did Oswald make so many friends with intelligence contacts and hang out with people of apparently disparate political values? Because he was a spy, and his Marxist persona was a front. 

It is by no means certain what Oswald was doing when he came back to America. The more popular theories, circulated by Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs tend to believe that Oswald was likely a double agent tracking the actions of Anti-Castro groups within and without the intelligence community, and/or that he stumbled upon a plot to kill JFK by these groups and had infiltrated it. At some point there was a turning of the screw. Someone knew Oswald was a double agent, or someone had been manipulating Oswald from the get go. They set him up to take the fall for the murder. 

Consider the gross misconduct of the Dallas police. Oswald was interrogated for 12 hours with no lawyer present, thus nothing he said could be used in court, and regardless the interrogation  was not recorded. The chain of evidence for nearly all the items in the case  is broken, non-existent, and haphazzard. Oswald could not be positively tested for firing a gun of any kind when a nitrate test was administered. Oswald’s prints could not be discovered on the so-called murder weapon until after Oswald had died. 

Earle Cabell, brother of the aforementioned Charles,  was the mayor of Dallas at the time of the parade. Its likely that he changed the parade route, in order to make the limo take that deadly slow turn down Elm street. Going down Elm put Kennedy in a deadly triangulation of crossfire, as Garrison worded it. Kennedy could easily be hit from the Dal-Tex building, the TSBD, behind the grassy knoll and several other areas. Who else but agents within the government could make the Secret Service stand down from riding on the back rails of the limo and decline back up protection arrive in Dallas? Who else but intelligence community officials could plant fake Secret Service agents out near the grassy knoll? Who else but government agents could steal the president’s body and make a clean get away aboard Air Force One? Who else but those within the government could insure not just a botched autopsy  but that vital evidence from that autopsy simply disappears?  Jack Ruby, waiting in the wings to clean up the mess of the patsy who knew too much is allowed into Dallas Police headquarters, and Oswald is forever silenced. Of course all the dirty secrets of the CIA and FBI stood to get exposed if a competent investigation had been undertaken. So J. Edgar Hoover performed a quick, shallow investigation.Brought into the Warren Commission,  Allen Dulles whom Kennedy had fired three years earlier, to keep the CIA’s war chest out of the hands of the Warren Commission. Major defense corporations have an owning interest in the major media outlets so maintaining media complicity in the biggest lie of our time has been effortless.

From Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, 1961:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

RESOURCES:

Garrison, Jim. On The Trail of the Assassins. Sherridan Square press. 1988

Hearings Before The President’s Commission on The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Gov’t Printing Office. 1964

Hurt, Henry. Reasonable Doubt. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1985

Nechiporenko, Oleg M.  Passport to Assassination. Carol Publishing Co. 1993

The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Television Documentary. Turner, Nigel;Director. 1988, 1990, 1995.

Blakey, G. Robert G. and Richard Billings. Fatal Hour. Berkley Books. 1992

Armstrong, John. Harvey and Lee. Quasar Books. 2003

RE: Too Many Oswalds..URL: http://www.jfklancer.com/Page4.html

Holland, Max. “The Assassination Tapes” Atlantic Monthly. June 2004

Marrs, Jim. Crossfire, the plot that killed Kennedy.

JFK (pt. 5)

We have now established that Oswald had some strange associations with people closely tied to the far right and intelligence agencies, that his motives are opaque at very best, that he was a terrible shot, and that it appears that someone or some group was impersonating him. Now let’s look at the shooting itself. Oswald could not make the shot. Not with his skills, not from his vanatge, and not with such a sub-par low power rifle.

Although much reasonable doubt has been cast about Oswald’s marksmanship, even giving the Warren Commission a break and saying Oswald was an expert shot, if was found that the best gunmen in the country could not duplicate Oswald’s shot:

“During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 [The Manlicher Carcano] in the condition it was found, within the time frame established and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.” (3 WCH 390-430) 

Not a single expert could hit a moving target under the same conditions, from the same vantage as Oswald. Furthermore, the FBI concluded the following about the Manlicher Carcano: 

*inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549)

*carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560);  OSWALD WAS RIGHT HANDED! The scope was useless to him.

*unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445).  NO SHIM WAS FOUND ON OSWALD OR IN HIS PERSONAL EFFECTS AT THE TIME OF ARREST. THE SCOPE COULD NOT BE USED TO ACCURATELY SIGHT EVEN IF LEE OSWALD WAS LEFT HHANDED. THE SCOPE WAS DOUBLY USELESS.

Then we have the preposterous notion of  the single bullet theory. We are told that Lee Oswald fired three shots off in about 8 seconds or less, with a bolt action rifle no less, a low powered rifle that achieved in the Warren Commission’s own words “high powered rifle” results, and executioner’s precision with tree coverage at an already difficult angle in his second two shots- both of which imply less accuracy as the target is moving further out of range.  We are also asked to believe that the second shot created seven wounds, two to Kennedy, and five to Governor John Connally. This bullet was found later at the end of a stretcher in parkland hospital in practically pristine condition.  This same bullet which was found miraculously in such excellent condition also appears to have had to make magical turns in mid-air in order to create the wounds it created:

Neither John nor Nellie Connally have ever wavered on their assertion that Governor Connally was struck by a separate bullet then the one which first struck President Kennedy. This adds a bullet to the equation- the two which hit Kennedy, the one that missed the motorcade and caused pedestrian James Taig a minor injury from debris, and now the fourth, the one (or more)which struck Connally. According to  the Warren Commission’s timeline, and the evidence it provided, Oswald simply could not have fired four shots. We have a second shooter. Furthermore, with Oswald’s ability and the state of the weapon attributed  to him, he couldn’t have been a shooter at all. Lee harvey Oswald was “just a patsy”.

JFK (pt. 4)

Its also Important to note that throughout this time, suspicious “Oswalds” began popping up engaging in strange behavior. Here is a partial list of what appears to be a primary tool of the “sheep dipping” the intelligence community engaged in: 

OSWALD AS POLITICAL DECOY

• Several mundane Oswald/ Oswald family  sightings when he appears to be doing what he is normally doing- looking for a job while he should be elsewhere. Notably one in which he gets a haircut in Jackson Louisiana, asks the barber for a job, and the barber says the mental hospital is hiring. Oswald was taken to  this town by Shaw. Garrison theorizes that perhaps the plan was to dupe Oswald- some errant behavior and worker becomes patient, patient escapes and kills JFK. Oswald never ended up taking the Job.
• A controversial theory that a Harvey Oswald of Russia is the Oswald that returned from the USSR in 1962 with the mission of killing Kennedy.
• 
• The top row shown above is the “American” Oswald, the bottom, the allegedly “Russian” Oswald. This theory, though interesting, is highly disputed even in conspiracy circles. (Armstrong)
  • The FBI commented on the possibility of Oswald imposters before the assassination: "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated." - J. Edgar Hoover memo to State Department, 6/3/60
  • Two men representing “Friends of  Democratic Cuba” attempted to purchase vehicles using the name Oswald, likely for the bay of pigs invasion at a ford dealership in 1961. Oswald was in the USSR at this time. (Garrison 56)
  • The notorious events in Mexico city, where Oswald allegedly attempted to retain visas to Cuba and the USSR, brandished a pistol and threatened several, including the life of JFK is validated by this photo of a man the government claims to be Lee Harvey Oswald  (Below) Meanwhile the testimony of Sylvia Odio to the Warren Commission who claims she met Oswald when he should have been in Mexico City. He was with Cuban exiles and discussing plotting the death of the president.
  • 
  • Several violent or erratic Oswalds  at shooting ranges, car dealerships, and other places in Dallas and Louisiana.
  • Dial Ryder claims to have put a scope on a mauser rifle for a man claiming to be Oswald. Oswald apparently drove to Ryder. Although Oswald did not drive, and did not own a mauser rifle, he allegedly owned a manlicher-carcano. However, a mauser was found in the texas School book depository- it vanished. (The preceeding information is derived from a variety of sources, notably class and a website, the JFK lancer)
  These are just some of many Oswald sightings. Either Lee Harvey Oswald could be several places at once, or there are just too many Oswalds.

JFK (pt. 3)

If Oswald’s  (and the American intelligence apparatus’) behavior in the marines or in Russia aren’t peculiar enough, his return to the states is simply mind boggling. Although the State Department could have, and routinely did deny defectors the right to return to our country, and also would have denied Marina access to America, this simply didn’t happen. In fact, Oswald was given a “repatriation” loan of $436- something that could only be given to a person who’s loyalty to our country is “beyond question”- as Jim Garrison points out, a person who gave away vital US secrets loyalty is hardly “beyond question.” Oswald was greeted upon returning to the States not by any law enforcement officials, but by an Anti- Communist organizer with intelligence connections, Spas T. Raikin. (Garrison 51) This seems an odd welcomer for our so-called Marxist. Moving to Fort Worth, Oswald befriended George De Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt was a “white russian”- tsarist blue blood, an anti-communist, and authors such as Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison contend that he was Oswald’s “handler” for the CIA. Oswald left Fort Worth for Dallas and befriended more white russians (such strange company for a communist to keep) and got a job making maps for the Army- even after being a defector.

Then there’s Oswald in New Orleans, and things get very messy. Oswald befriended anti-Castro cuban exiles and subsequently got in a very public brawl with them when they discovered him handing out leftist “Fair Play for Cuba” leaflets. Oswald was arrested and asked to speak with FBI agent John Quigley, who spoke with him, taking notes, which he subsequently destroyed. Oswald was released. The address on these leaflets was 544 camp street- essentially the same address as Guy Bannister, ex- FBI, anti-Castro operator who was associated with David Ferrie, a mercenary who also worked to organize and train Anti- Castro exiles. Several witnesses linked Oswald directly with these individuals and “Clay Bertrand,” believed  to be Clay Shaw, later found to be a CIA operative. It was said that these men planned to assassinate the president. (Garrison 29-43) Oswald was spotted by witnesses receiving what appeared to be money from Clay shaw at an obscure rendezvous location in a park, and by numerous witnesses with Shaw and Ferrie observing blacks registering to vote in a small town in Louisiana. Numerous employees including Bannister’s secretary and Jack Martin claim Oswald and Ferrie were regulars in Bannister’s office. Many contend Oswald’s leftist behaviors were a hoax; that he was acting as an “agent provacatuer.”