,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This is an interesting thread, but not super persuasive on the overarching claim. The dismissal or neglect of Locke by many prominent 19th century liberals tracks the ascendancy of the utilitarian strain of liberal political thought over natural rights/contractualism. But...
...that doesn’t really qualify as some sort of demolition of a false yet dominant narrative. That IS the traditional narrative, at least as I’d always understood it. Locke’s “Father of Liberalism” status didn’t turn on some weird misapprehension that J.S. Mill was a Lockean.
The throughline that makes it sensible to talk about a “liberal tradition” encompassing Locke and Mill runs through political practice—with Mill providing an independent theoretical justification for many of the institutional design choices made under Locke’s influence.
And that’s... pretty normal for how we talk about broad traditions in political philosophy. Outside of foot-stompy internecine disputes, nobody thinks it’s a problem to talk about a “socialist tradition” embracing thinkers with very different metaphysical or ethical foundations.
