# Questions about political philosophy



## Toasty (Nov 27, 2015)

In John Locke's _First Treatise of Government_, he makes reference to Robert Filmer who believes that men are not naturally free. What is meant by "free"? Is this political freedom or having political rights?

Is the divine right of kings the idea that no one has authority over a king except for God?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2015)

Toasty said:


> In John Locke's _First Treatise of Government_, he makes reference to Robert Filmer who believes that men are not naturally free. What is meant by "free"? Is this political freedom or having political rights?
> 
> Is the divine right of kings the idea that no one has authority over a king except for God?



Locke's man-in-state-of-nature/freedom would have something like:

1. Common use (not ownership) of the land.
2. The freedom to consent to join a civil society.
3. The right to punish crime in the sense of self-defense.
4. Property of his own person as labour.

Divine right of kings implies that no one is above the king but God, but it's point is that only God legitimizes the king (or also, delegitimizes).


----------



## Toasty (Nov 28, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > In John Locke's _First Treatise of Government_, he makes reference to Robert Filmer who believes that men are not naturally free. What is meant by "free"? Is this political freedom or having political rights?
> ...




Thanks, Jacob.

Would the idea of the divine right of kings imply that the king cannot be wrong when he makes laws?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2015)

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



No. The king can be wrong but nobody is in a position to punish him for it. That's the heart of the debate between Rutherford and the Royalists.

Also, it's important to distinguish between the Western view of divine right vs. the Byzantine/Tsarist view. For the latter, monks routinely called them on the errors.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2015)

Here is another way to look at divine right of kings. Compare it to the recent Les Miles uproar. AD Alleva and the fat cat donors wanted to fire Miles and admittedly, there wasn't much that the good people of Louisiana could do to stop that. Alleva then realized that if he fired the most beloved person in Louisiana at the moment, the whole state would be crying for his head. And rightly so.

Same with some traditions of divine right of kings. Just because a monarch _can_ do something doesn't mean he _will_ do something. This modal fallacy is quite common with republican theorists who attack royalism. 

And there is more than one type of "consequences." Just because there isn't legal consequences doesn't mean the king will get off scot-free.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 29, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



This reminds me that there should be a system of checks and balances in the government.

Does the Bible address the situation where the king is wrong, does evil, makes evil laws and so on, but no one is in a position to punish him?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2015)

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



The Book of Daniel.


----------

