Canavan’s critique would target Locke/ Victor Davis Hanson's emphasis on radical individual autonomy. As a Catholic social theorist, Canavan argued that the state is not merely a "neutral referee" protecting autonomous individuals from one another. Instead, he argued that a society must have a shared understanding of a teleological "Common Good" and objective moral order. Canavan would warn that if you focus entirely on the individual "driving their own machine," society inevitably atomizes into pure moral relativism, where the "person driving" has no shared roadmap with their neighbors.

whose thesis is this: modern rights can be saved by anchoring them in a split-ownership model where God builds the machine, but our self-consciousness owns the "person" driving it

This thesis belongs to John Locke, the 17th-century English philosopher often called the "Father of Liberalism". [1]

Locke’s foundational theory of natural rights and self-ownership relies on exactly this kind of dual theological and psychological framework: [1]

• God builds the machine: In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke argues that human beings are the property of God because He created us. We are "His workmanship," sent into the world by His order and about His business. Our physical bodies are essentially divine machinery that we do not have the right to destroy or sell into absolute slavery. [1, 2, 3]
• Self-consciousness owns the person: In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke famously defines a "person" as a thinking, intelligent being that has reason and reflection, inseparable from consciousness. He argues that "every man has a property in his own person". [1]

By splitting ownership this way, Locke created a powerful defense for modern individual rights: your physical body belongs to God (preventing suicide or absolute submission to a tyrant), but your conscious self owns your identity, labor, and personal choices, which forms the bedrock of modern liberty. [1, 2, 3]

how does Francis Canavan critque hanson

There is no record of a direct intellectual critique between the political philosopher Father Francis Canavan, S.J. and the classicist/military historian Victor Davis Hanson. The two men operated in different academic disciplines and different eras—Canavan was a prominent 20th-century Jesuit political theorist who specialized in the thought of Edmund Burke and passed away in 2009, while Hanson’s primary body of political commentary grew prominent in the 21st century. [1, 2]

However, if one constructs an ideological dialogue based on their respective philosophies—particularly regarding the Lockean framework of rights discussed previously—Canavan’s foundational principles would offer a profound critique of the assumptions underlying Hanson's political worldview.

1. The Core Conflict: Burkean Prescription vs. Lockean Natural Rights

As one of the world's foremost scholars on Edmund Burke, Canavan championed a conservative philosophy rooted in tradition, prescription, and historical continuity rather than abstract, unalienable natural rights. [1, 2]

• Hanson’s View: Hanson relies heavily on the foundational assumptions of the American Founding, arguing that rights are abstract, universal constants endowed directly by God to the autonomous individual.
• Canavan's Critique: Canavan, channeling Burke, would argue that anchoring liberty purely in abstract "Lockean natural rights" is fundamentally dangerous. In his book The Political Reason of Edmund Burke, Canavan emphasized that human rights are not mathematical abstractions built on an individualistic "split-ownership" model. Instead, rights are nurtured, inherited, and sustained through concrete social institutions, historical communities, and religious traditions. For Canavan, treating rights as abstract individual property risks severing the individual from the moral obligations of community. [1]

2. Individual Autonomy vs. The Common Good

• Hanson's View: As discussed, Hanson praises the radically autonomous individual ("driving the machine") who takes complete responsibility for their own labor, mind, and choices, free from state interference.
• Canavan's Critique: Canavan’s critique would target Hanson's emphasis on radical individual autonomy. As a Catholic social theorist, Canavan argued that the state is not merely a "neutral referee" protecting autonomous individuals from one another. Instead, he argued that a society must have a shared understanding of a teleological "Common Good" and objective moral order. Canavan would warn that if you focus entirely on the individual "driving their own machine," society inevitably atomizes into pure moral relativism, where the "person driving" has no shared roadmap with their neighbors.

3. The Nature of "The State"

• Hanson’s View: Hanson often views the modern state with suspicion—viewing centralized government and administrative bureaucracies as entities that inherently encroach upon individual liberty.
• Canavan's Critique: While Canavan also critiqued modern secularism and liberalism, he viewed political authority as a natural, God-given necessity for human flourishing, not a necessary evil. Canavan argued that a healthy society requires a government that is comfortable reinforcing the moral fabric of its people (e.g., through law and public policy). He would critique Hanson’s political outlook as being too close to classical liberalism, warning that a society focused entirely on anti-statism lacks the tools to maintain public virtue.