This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. The State of Nature therefore, is not the same as the state of war. It can, however devolve into a state of war, in particular, a state of war over property disputes. Whereas the State of Nature is the state of liberty where persons recognize the Law of Nature and therefore do not harm one
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of
Unlike Hobbes, he thought the state of nature is characterized by reason. Moreover, he viewed humans as cooperative, social animals who want to be loved. He also believed that we are all created equal and have the right to life, liberty, health, and property, as they are our God-given rights. For this reason, he opposed monarchy and believed democracy was the best form of government. Furthermore, he believed that we all have the right to protect our God-given rights and not harm others regarding their life, health, liberty, and possessions.
These ideas includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (natural rights); the protection that is provided by the government for these rights; and the altering or abolishment of government if it fails to provide and protect the rights of the people. There may also be some differentiating ideas regarding these two sources. An example of this may be that, even though Jefferson and Locke agreed that the people should be able to overthrow the government if their rights were encroached upon, Hobbes believed that this would lead to a state of nature, which wouldn’t end greatly. The first way that the Declaration of Independence and
Therefore, for Locke, sovereignty does not reside in a monarch, but the people. With this idea, Locke suggests that people do not need to be afraid of their sovereign. There is no need for Hobbes’s Leviathan because, “men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 8). For Hobbes, a civilized peaceful society would not exist if it they did not have a leviathan. On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably.
Thoreau identifies that ultimately if citizens want change from injustice, citizens must disobey. The active pursuit of injustice and constant disobedience affects change within the government. Likewise, the Declaration of Independence claims that disobedience becomes a part of a citizen’s duty. The Declaration of Independence starts with a similar call to action: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another … a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”
In our country, we have a pretty decent government. Even though there will always be people who don 't agree with the current government is important to have a strong, stable government to protect people and their property, make and enforce laws, and it creates less contention and rebellion (Locke). It is important that we have a republic democracy in America, where the people can have a say in how our government is ran and who it is ran by. Having a government is extremely important. According to John Locke, in order to protect people’s natural rights, a government must be in place and people must be subject unto it.
To begin, Locke and Hobbes were two outstanding thinkers who argued in different ways, Hobbes believed in the legitimacy of absolute monarch and Locke believed in a government based on the will of the people being governed. They both represented a growing trend in European society in the 17th and 18th centuries to use reason as the final judgment of things, including the conduct of kings. They contributed to modern political science, and they both had similar views on where power lies in a society. Hobbes has influenced to some degree what can be done to change a government by the people, the contributions Hobbes did led to the foundation of what today is the conservative party. On the other hand, Locke was very influential in shaping modern politics, our current view of human nature, the nature of individual rights, the popular constitutions that exist today and the building blocks of the liberal party.
Usurpation is changing the leadership of an aggressive government without altering the form and laws of that government. Only the people have the right to confirm their leader and choose the type of government they are governed by. A good leader works for the benefit of all people and abides by legislative laws while a tyrant while a tyrant acts on his own benefit and breaks the law whenever it pleases him. An executive body falls into tyranny whenever it stops working for the benefit of the people. When a government descends into a state of tyranny it should be dissolved and replaced.
This statement basically states that “no one has power over another and are free (Locke 4)” to govern themselves accordingly. Yet, this theory that man are equal and can govern themselves does not abide by abuse or harm to another. Locke states that “all mankind who abide by the law of nature are equal and may not