Introduction: While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function. When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s
The main philosophy of John Locke, a famous and well-known Enlightenment philosopher, involves his theory of natural law and natural rights given to mankind. In this particular article, entitled “The Consent of the Governed”, part of his work Two Treatises of Government, Locke addresses importance of man’s natural state and its main characteristics, the forming of a government and what it offers and the relationship between a government and its subjects.
This paper examines both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison remark concerning ‘ factions ’ as the potential destructive social force to the society. To layout and examine, this paper will first outline and discuss on Rousseau’s understanding of factions in The Social Contract,and Madison’s discussion on factionalism in the Federalist Papers 10.But there are many component surrounded with their view’s on ‘factions’,so it is important to consider together. Firstly,I will consider the definition and the element surrounded with their view on factions. With regard to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract,he believes that the society can only function to the extent that people have interest in common.
In the order of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, as time went on, the positive image of the government declined, and the negative image of humans in a state of nature became more positive. The reason that Locke’s philosophies are the most influential in democracies in today’s world is because his thinking was much more moderate than the extreme ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau; Hobbes believed humans were inherently evil and Rousseau believed humans were inherently good. Contrastingly, Locke believed that humans would fair well in a state of nature, but could utilize government as a source of order and benefit in life. In the end, their thoughts of the state of humans in a natural realm are what motivated their various thoughts about government. Although it is difficult to see what a human society would be like under complete anarchy, through the trials and errors of different countries and different political regimes, the philosophies of the different thinkers have shown their various benefits and
The historical development of the world from 1690 to 1830 wouldn’t be what it was if it weren’t for John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Locke’s Second Treatise not only sparked individualism, but also revolutions, and was a guide to the creations of declarations around the world. Two main revolutions and declarations that Locke’s ideas inspired were the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
Jefferson was strongly influenced by the belief that all humans have certain rights that cannot be taken away, and that these rights ought to be protected by a government. The resemblance between “the state of nature” and “the Declaration of Independence” are uncanny, Jefferson and Locke are consistently portraying the same ideas whether they mention the transition between the “Law of Nature” to the “Law of a Civil Society” or the concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Jefferson “Declaration of Independence”). The main similarities between the two works are the ideas that mainly focused on equality. However, some major difference that stands out between the two documents are that the Social Contract is based off an agreement between civilians and a higher power, such as a monarchy, where civilians would give up some of their freedom to live in a governed society. While the Declaration of Independence mentions how a monarchy did not protect the rights of the citizens and therefore, developed a government that was based solely on the will of its
Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.
In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar. Man in nature is isolated.
1.) What does Madison mean by the term “Faction”? What is a modern term we would use today? Madison uses the term faction to refer to groups of individuals arguing not for the rights or good of the community as a whole, but rather that which would benefit those who hold similar positions or interests. Different factions represent different ideas, leading to conflict and debate.
Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form. --- Rousseau begins his
In any other system, the people give up their freedom without any reason; it should be created only if all agree to it. The social contract would exist for the purpose of self-preservation, pushing the common will of the Sovereign. To convince his audience of these complex ideas, Rousseau must stay organized and be intentional in his rhetorical
John Locke is a famous and influential 17th century English philosopher and political theorist who not only influenced and laid the ground work for the Enlightenment, but who also influenced the foundations of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being one of the authors of the Social Contract Theory, he paved the way for democracy, republicanism and liberalism. One of his most important and notable work’s to this day is the “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” which is the document in which the American founding fathers accredited their work to as they used his political theories to draft both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
However, by doing so, we retain our individuality and freedom. In chapter 6, of the social contract Rousseau argues that people need to give up their individual freedom and unite for the common good of all in order to overcome the natural threats to their own existence. It is their own existence that motivates them to give up their individual freedom and unite. The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united.
1. In Federalist Paper 10, Madison expressed concerns about factions and his desire to protect the minority (people with land) from the majority (those without). He stated that a large republic should be created so that tiny factions interest groups will have a difficult time uniting and becoming a majority that usurps the minority. Do you think this theory has withstood the test of time? Discuss instances in which it has/has not.