Liberal democracy and the Bible Book

John Locke was the father of Classical Liberalism, closer today to libertarianism than anything else. This contains his best known works and some of his letters. Includes The Second Treatise of Government, The Letter Concerning Toleration, and the Constitution of the Carolina Colony. The first 100 pages are a history lesson placing his works in context.

The historical preface sets the stage for Locke's works. He lived through the English Civil War, the protestant reign of Charles II, the Catholic reign of James II, and the seizing of the Crown by William of Orange (William and Mary). He worked in the protestant government and was forced into exile by the Catholics. He returned with the success of William III.

It's interesting to see the different writings over time and his evolution of thought. At first a strict monarchist he later moved to limited government, although he was always a monarchist and had total disdain for democracy. As a government employee writing potentially treasonous work he wrote much of his stuff under a pseudonym. So you have a man preaching limited government also writing the Carolina Constitution which established a landed nobility ruling over a legal serfdom. The only really consistency was his stance on religious tolerance, always in favor of tolerance and separation of church and state.

Locke spent an inordinate amount of time disputing the writings of Sir Robert Filmer, who had written a famous treatise espousing absolute monarchy based upon the fact that God had given Adam dominion over all men, so his descendants should have the same ability to rule uncontested. Locke focused heavily on this because he disagreed on many levels and because at the time many members of the Church were preaching Filmer's ideology to the masses.

Locke is rightly credited with being a founding philosopher concerning religious tolerance, and his views on limited government are best taken in context of his times, not so much the current times as he wrote much on how the government was only legitimate if supported by the people but he still believed it should be led by a strong monarch, preferably hereditary.