Rich,
The depth and and breadth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me. It has been too long since I read Locke to rightly remember most of his thoughts on the subject (and that, although I diligently listened to every word he said at the time, I did. Guess I am getting old

)) - I did recall enough to quickly locate this:
"The constant desire of happiness, and the constraint it puts upon us to act for it, nobody, I think, accounts an abridgment of liberty, or at least an abridgment of liberty to be complained of."
(Book II, Chapter XXI, Of the Idea of Power. 51. A constant Determination to a Pursuit of Happiness no Abridgment of Liberty.)
Thank goodness for the internet, by the time I'd gone through my four volumes with a magnifying glass, it would have been the 22 century...
Everyone - from the days of the SPQR (actually the Greek democracies before) down to JFK's ...ask not, what your country can do for you..." has always argued that satisfaction lies in following duty and honor.
The question, to my mind is - do we ever "do" anything unless we want to? Either we do an unpleasant thing in order to avoid something even less pleasant - or we do what we want and look for a socially acceptable excuse afterwards.
Locke, JFK, Shakespeare in Marc Anthony's speech...all come down to this one point: Seeing the good of all as your own good - and therefore co-commitent to your own happiness. Co-commitent? O my paws and whiskers, it has too long been since I the English write...Hope you know what I mean.
Or maybe I just need a cup of coffee. It is early morning over here. Love to hear your ideas on this...I confess to having fulfilled my philosphy requirements at university with courses in logic and a few essays for final exams which were so peppered with Latin (now forgotten) that my profs. thought I must be competent...silly them.