Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on John Locke’s Philosophical Core Ideas

John Locke (1632-1704), the Enlightenment empiricist and father of liberalism, laid the groundwork for modern political philosophy in Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). His core ideas include natural rights to life, liberty, and property as inalienable endowments from the state of nature; the social contract as consensual limitation of power to protect these rights, with government deriving legitimacy from the governed’s consent; empiricism’s tabula rasa (blank slate mind) filled by experience, emphasizing rational inquiry over dogma; and tolerance as a bulwark against arbitrary authority. Locke advocated separation of powers and revolution against tyranny that violates the contract. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Locke’s lens, exemplifies tyrannical breach of the contract: the judiciary’s coercive “order” tramples liberty and rational inquiry, lacking consent and proportionality, eroding natural rights in favor of unaccountable power.

1. Violation of Natural Rights: Coercive Punishment as Assault on Liberty and Property

Locke’s state of nature endows individuals with inalienable rights—life, liberty (freedom from arbitrary restraint), and property (fruits of labor)—which government must secure, or forfeit legitimacy.

Article 293’s application assaults these: the 20-month sentence restrains Chen’s liberty without just cause—no evidenced “disorder” (zero causal ripple from <100 retweets)—treating his scholarly “property” (intellectual labor in forwards like Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as state confiscation. The closed-door trial and “shut up” directive compound the violation: liberty demands rational defense, yet Chen’s prison letter (taxonomy of “rumors” and avalanche theory) is silenced, presuming malice without consent. Locke would decry this as reversion to pre-contract tyranny (Second Treatise, Ch. 3): government, meant to umpire rights, becomes predator, as selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes arbitrary theft. Natural liberty yields to despotic caprice, fracturing the contract’s foundation.

2. The Social Contract and Consent of the Governed: Judicial Fiat as Breach of Legitimate Authority

Locke’s contract theory posits government as trustee of the people, deriving authority from express or tacit consent; tyranny—arbitrary power—dissolves the trust, justifying resistance.

The non-oral appeal breaches this trust: “upper-level instructions” impose fiat without consent, as the prosecutor’s unverified admission evades public accountability. Chen’s inquiry—rational exercise of liberty—revokes tacit consent by suppression, echoing Locke’s right to revolution (Second Treatise, Ch. 19): when trustees violate ends (security of rights), the people reclaim sovereignty. Anomalies like evidentiary voids signal dissolution: the “evidence chain” lacks consensual basis, as millions of similar forwards imply widespread non-consent to the rule. Locke would indict this as tyrannical dissolution: without consent, law devolves to command, not contract—justice demands deliberation, not dictation.

3. Empiricism and Rational Inquiry: Suppressed Evidence as Dogmatic Assault on the Blank Slate

Locke’s empiricism views the mind as a tabula rasa, filled by sensory experience and reflection; knowledge demands empirical scrutiny, not unexamined authority.

The verdict dogmatizes without reflection: presuming “disruption” from unexamined impressions (no fact-checks, prosecutor’s admission), it fills the slate with prejudice, as the barred taxonomy ignores reflective inquiry. This assaults Lockean reason: Chen’s avalanche theory—empirically mapping non-causal complexity—exemplifies reflective liberty, yet suppression enforces a pre-filled slate of “malice.” Selective enforcement further exposes the assault: empirical uniformity yields to arbitrary inscription. Locke would see this as epistemological tyranny: without scrutiny, the mind’s freedom atrophies, inverting education’s telos into indoctrination.

Conclusion: Locke’s Lens on the Case—A Contract in Tatters, Rights in Chains

From John Locke’s liberal empiricism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a contractual rupture: natural liberties plundered, consent betrayed, and rational inquiry dogmaticized, chaining the governed to tyrannical trustees. As of October 23, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a Lockean call to reclaim the slate. This case cautions: government without consent is conquest. As Locke declared, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”—may the trustees yet honor the ends.