I wonder where she’s going with this…
You have a typo in the panel on the protectorate: “The Civil War ended with England’s monarcy overthrown” (the h in monarchy is missing).
Bloody ell. Thanks!
Since we’re talking about Locke, let’s not forget his views on slavery.
See, e.g. John Quiggin’s John Locke Against Freedom.
I am not entirely sure how it is relevant. People make arguments designed to defend their own narrow and parochial interests that turn out to have broader relevance than they meant for them to have all the time.
Yes, and using the current standards/knowledge of today, we must also call Copernicus an idiot…
Exactly, the only reason that we care about ancient thinkers is that they were righting back before anyone knew anything. If they were around today their observations and ideas would be incredibly obvious and inane.
This is a tangent. However, I find Robert Nozick’s criticism of Locke more salient. Locke believed that the only legitimate function of the state was to protect property. He believed that property is rightly formed by mixing your labor with the natural resources of the world. The problem with this theory, is that there is no reason why mixing my labor with natural resources should result in me gaining the resources rather than losing my labor. If I poor a glass of my cream into the ocean. I don’t gain the ocean, I lose my cream. So, Locke’s reasoning doesn’t justify property or the state, unless you seriously think that I can gain the sole right to control the ocean by poring my cream in it.
Because unless you gain the results of your labor, there is no reason to labor. Just as in your illustration, where few people pour their cream into the ocean, few would labor it they were not granted the fruits thereof.
We generally don’t want people to pour cream into the ocean. That would just be a waste of cream. More generally, saying that all mixing of labor with raw materials results in gaining the material rather than losing the labor, would just result in labor and natural resources being wasted on things that are not useful.
Why is the mugger dude grabbing the victim lady’s boob? Is he mugging her or sexually assaulting her?
He is claiming her body. Which she owns (lets ignore just how much of that is up for debate right now). In the first panel he claims her body. In the second panel she asserts her right to say she owns her body, and in the last panel he settles for stealing the product of her labours.
I will admit I read it twice on my first pass, but it got a lot of the nuance of the situation.
Is that Catalina de Erauso, wandering transvestite badass of the Spanish Empire I see trying to sell herself into slavery?