tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2479187141371526253..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Alex Knepper on the Founders, Hobbes & LockeBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82615215600221543502016-01-09T15:16:23.694-07:002016-01-09T15:16:23.694-07:00The problem with invoking the Straussians is that ...The problem with invoking the Straussians is that even if they're correct, that's not how the Founders understood Hobbes and Locke. Here Alexander Hamilton disparages the former and puts the latter solidly in the natural law camp [a subject on which he is equivocal if not self-contradictory].<br /><br /><i>The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that “I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong.”<br /><br />I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.<br /><br />There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com