Yeah, Locke was one of the "Harmonists" to whom I was alluding. He's a
great source of inspiration for today's
neo-liberals/-conservatives/-classicists.
Of course, Locke, Hume, Stuart-Mill(s), Berkely et al were no doubt
well-meaning and, in their time, represented the critical edge of social
theory: liberalism. Nevertheless, today's western system owes a lot to
their theorising; unless of course one assumes that philosophy has little
effect on society (B. Russell put forward this argument at one stage!). I
do not believe this is so.
Locke's theory of politics layed the "rational" foundation for (modern)
value-neutral technocratic structures.
My point is that diversity _is_ the human condition (perhaps that of life)
and so requires no further definition or promotion. It's a first principle,
I think.
Phil
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html