From a reader in Prague:

Dear Mr. Goldberg, I guess the reader damning Locke was Daniel Larison, wasn’t he? Well, let us review his points: 1. “Rousseau admired Locke a good deal” – sure, because his whole political philosophy was a polemic with Locke! You do not write your philosophy as a polemic with a lightweight; with somedy you consider an idiot. You pick a worthy opponent… 2.”Locke, far more than Rousseau, ignores the problem of original sin… Rousseau displaced original sin…! Well, who ignored the original sin more, after all? I would bet that one who “displaced” it. On the other hand, the whole Lockean political philosophy could be considered as a philosphy of punishment! His reasons for (a transition from a natural state to) a state-government are based on his theory of a more effective punishments! But if your political philosophy is based on (a theory of) punishment, you hardly ignore original sin! 3. “Locke declares that men are born free as they are born rational. It is difficult to view more opposed to that of Burke and conservatism.” According to both Aristotelian and conservative Christian Catholic anthropology, a man is a free and rational being. He is free to choose between good and evil (otherwise all morality would be nonsense) and his reason is in principle capable to percieve and discover basic tenets of right and wrong, truth and error. Of course, both his free will and reason are obscured and weakened by original sin, but that does not mean that man as a man is neither free nor rational. Strange to blame that on Locke, when it is, in fact, the whole Western tradition (with the exceptions of deterministic Calvinism, materialism, marxism, etc.) … 4. ”Locke is extremely anti-historical. His system is an attempt to escape historically evolved societies.” Both revealed relegion and philosophy are a-historical. They reveal and/or seek for what is absolutely and universaly right and true, regardless of (incumbent) traditions or conventions. Christianity Anno Domini 100 had been pretty anti-historical. 5. I am not sure Strauss was completely right on Locke, but neither I am sure he was not. The trouble with Locke is that his metaphysical political philosphy (natural rights, objective human nature, etc.) has been incompatible with his empiricist, skeptical philosophy of knowlidge (epistemology). In fact, Locke’s epistemology is contradictory to and subversive of his political philosphy. Strauss thought Locke had been aware of that, some others could think he hadn’t been (he had just been a poor philosopher). Locke’s political philosphy is not philosphy per se, but a dogmatic fideism. He, as a political philospher failed, which does not mean his political philosphy has been wrong – it just means he has not been able to vindicate it. Very well, there are several good reasons to criticize Locke, but not a single one by your reader. I would like to conclude by agreeing very much with your conclusion: “Conservatism is certainly about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that does not seek to conserve classical liberalism simply isn’t worth conserving.” Compare that with NR’s late Frank S. Meyer: “Liberty is the political end of man’s existence because liberty is the condition of his being. It is for this reason that conservatism, which in preserving the tradition preserves this truth, is only consistent to itself when it is libertarian.” (“In Defense of John Stuart Mill”, NR, March 28, 1956). But perhaps to our dear reader damning Locke, that Frank Meyer was – like yourself – another “essential progressive”… And the only true conservative is… your reader! Ah, well…