Who influenced John Locke?

I think most of the road of political thought to liberty was already achieved by the time of John Locke’s theory of natural rights. I am more familiar with the post-Locke progress towards liberty, from Lysander Spooner, to Molinari and to Rothbard. I am not familiar though with the road taken by philosophers and scholars before John Locke. So my question is what were the major influences on John Locke? Who are the people who started to look at individual rights and property rights? To whom should we give the credit?

John Locke should be given credit for whatever he thought of. Hobbes and myself are the ones who should not receive credit for our work. See celebritytypes.com Hobbes was a sensing type which means he was not logical and not a creator. He could not think independently on his own but Locke could think independently.

BTW, Good thread Mr. Eugene: )

I don’t take John Locke as proponent of liberty. He inconsistently applys the labor theory of property that he himself espouses, first saying that whatever a man makes is his, and then lates says that it belongs to the man what his horse or servant made. Pretty much like saying “all man are created equal”, but “man” refers to us, not to them.

Of four people you mentioned the only one who supported a consistent application of labor theory of property was Spooner, who was a socialist (mutualist).

You take marks off for not giving property rights to animals? Nice.

As for the OP’s question:

It sounds like, Boyle, Bacon, Newton, Descartes, and Lord Ashley influenced him. It also seems as thought Lord Ashley may be a sort of John Hancock-minded fellow; or rather, Hancock was a Ashley-minded fellow.

Quick answer most people like:

He is from the British Empiricist school which opposed rationalism.

The Roots before Locke: Bacon and Hobbes

I like the long answer. It makes sure people read.

@Aristotophanes: Most people are actually animals (myself included), and we shouldn’t necessarily have property rights, but the person you were replying to meant that all life are of right and ought to be free from aggression. However, I disagree, because If I (or any member of my own kind) gets killed, then the NAP won’t really have been violated… I can’t be aggressed against more than once, God said so, and I have experienced it anyway. “Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you” is true… that is, Natural Individuals (probably not more than 20% of the world’s population) don’t get fooled more than twice.

You consider subordinate people animals? Nice.

I didn’t know you were referring to people, son. When you say “horse” i think of the four legged creature that “neighs” and eats hay, not “subordinate people.” Maybe you should just refer to people as people instead of referring to subordinate people as animals…

@No2Statism

I don’t know what you are saying.

You have spot blindness, don’t know how to read some words, or you’re just trolling.

You needed to make “or servant” a subordinate clause for the reader to infer that horse, or servant, is the same object of reference. You are confusing denotation with connotation as well. So, my “spot blindness” is actually a stunning observational lucidity of punctuation, and it’s purposeful use, in a sentence.

I didn’t know that lack of punctuation there would change the meaning. Then my apologies for the mistake, English is my third language.