Throughout history, humankind has adapted different types of civilizations. Manny of the people who entered a society had a specific motto that caused that person to join. The inspiration of protecting certain materialistic objects was one of the main reasons. However, many of these societies have been impacted by the growing population and the era one lives. Although these civilizations have diverse structures, they have the following elements in common; an established rule of the things one can do or one cannot do as a member of that specific society. The implemented rule can give all the liberty to the people, or restrict the power of liberty. It can also give the government the liberty to be a monarch. Consequently, these societies have helped the people cope with their environmental surroundings, as the society keeps developing.
In the book, Two Treatise of Government by John Locked the civil society is a group of individuals who come together, and consent to be ruled by the executive authority. Locked (1993) proclaims “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one of his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political society, or civil society. … [T]o make one people, one body politic under a supreme government (p. 159). From this quote, one can infer that when an individual from the state of nature resigns to his natural freedom, and enters a civil civilization in which he gives permission to be governed by a supreme law. The natural freedom that individuals renounce is the freedom given at the state of nature, in which people do things as they please without following civil laws. People consent to be governed by government by staying in ...
... middle of paper ...
...nal property from individuals in the state of nature was one of the main reasons people joined civil societies, which allows individuals to enjoy their property freely.
From my perspective, I agree with Locke’s beliefs of destroying the transgressor because if I worked hard cultivating the land with bare hands to make it my property, I would extremely object the notion of someone taking my property with irrationality. Therefore, I believe it is fair to protect personal property of the majority of the people. However, those who have no materialistic property, have their personal wellbeing to be protected from any transgressor. Overall, the civil society allows the government to protect life, liberty, and property, and amend the inconveniences of the state of nature.
Works Cited
Locke, J. (1993). Two treatises of goverment. The Orion Publishing Group. DOI: London
Locke believed it was the government 's job to protect property because even though life was free, “enjoyment of it was very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others.” (Locke 61) There was uncertainty because not everyone wanted to follow the natural laws which made life unsafe and unpredictable. Life, liberties and property were at stake and if moral laws could not be followed a government would be formed to maintain that. “Willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.” (Locke, 61) Jefferson shares these same viewpoints and focuses on how the British king is ignoring and falling short of these expectations. Jefferson believed the people had the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and when the government fails to secure these rights he thought it was the people’s rights to abolish the government and create a new one. Not only did Jefferson think it was in the people’s rights rather, “...it is their duty, to throw off such government.” Declaration of Independence, 90). The British government failed to maintain the moral laws Locke thought the government should protect and in turn this was ultimately the reason Jefferson thought it was the people’s duties to separate from Great
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
Hunt discusses the way in which Ancient Greece and Rome forced many people into slavery and created many treatises in order to organize society by decree of ideology. Society had to be structured in order to properly operate, as Diamond conveys the idea that ideologies must be present for the society to have structural integrity. Once again, in chapter 14, Diamond discusses the importance of ideology as groups structure in bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. As groups progress and evolve their ideologies, society advances and allows prosperity and welfare among the people. On the contrary, Hunt discusses the importance of custom and tradition within medieval societies. Many of these societies lacked the central authority that allowed for organization, so many systems were based off the mutual obligations and services of the people. This allowed for various ideologies to facilitate the advancement of society as their changes altered the changes of society. Thus, the medieval societies required much attentiveness to following ideology in order to operate on a sound
In Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," he uses a hyperbole to support his belief that "one person can make a change," an idea still relevant today. Thoreau uses many forms of literary techniques such as multiple hyperbole, emotional appeals, and paradoxes. Thoreau uses these to sustain his ideas on civil disobedience. He believes if you believe in something, and support something you should do whatever it takes to help the cause. Many people in today's society believe to just go with the flow, rather than living like Thoreau has, and supporting his own beliefs no matter what the consequence. Henry David Thoreau had a lot of personal authority, he was all about his own independence. Many different people believed in being a non-conformist, and Thoreau was one of them, and he very well showed how much he supported it. Thoreau was not the only nonconformist, they're many people who followed his beliefs and they refused to be bound by anybody, or anything they did not support. Other non-conformists were Gandhi, Galileo, Malcom X and many more.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a piece that denounces the role of government and promotes the individuality of man. He argues that government rarely proves itself to be useful, and that anything achieved under the influence of that government could have been even greater had the system not been involved, evident in paragraph 2, “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” (Thoreau, lines 12-16) He states that the American government derives its power from the majority, not the strongest group, and not necessarily the most moral. Thoreau wants us to believe that we the people should follow what we think to be ethically just, not what the government and the majority force upon us. In my opinion, I agree with Thoreau in the aspect that we need a more improved form of government, however I disagree with the type of government that Thoreau wishes for. He believes we work better without restraint and that we must command our individual respect, but I heartily argue the opposite; a society must have order and an infrastructure, we need a system to oversee the problems that we cannot solve as humans with individual mindsets. I do not believe that the government should have the right to pry into our lives without solid evidence, but I do believe that we need a fair and balanced administration that is required to look after its’ peoples’ well being.
Consequently, since all human beings have certain moral rights to health, liberty, and possessions; they also have the right to enforce the protection of those rights by way of punishing violators. And it is in this maintaining of ones own rights that it is necessary for man to initially come together and form a social contract. By forming a social contract they are agreeing to sustain from living purely in a state of nature. According to Locke, living in such a state of nature is ‘inconvienent’, for there is no common ground by which to appropriately judge an individual who infringes upon another person natural rights (Christman 43). Therefore, one can not ‘effectively enjoy’ their own rights until they join under a ‘common political authority’ (44).
In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty.
One of the major themes throughout this book is the need for more collaboration, coalitions, and alliances at the regional level dealing with major political, economic, social, and environmental problems our metropolitan regions face. One example the book provides for increasing collaboration between regional actors is to create a dialogue to establish “mutual understanding through a process that suspends judgment, reveals assumptions on both sides, and includes diverse perspectives..” A dialogue replaces the inefficient process of debate with a collaborative one that builds trusts and helps to reconcile difference between seemingly competing interests. In San Diego for example, in the 1980’s civic leaders had UCSD set up an organization to spell out all the regions problems and bring the community together to help work at solving the region’s challenges. The San Diego dialogue was noted for helping to build connections that broke down borders between different groups and the shift in focus from individual grievances to community solutions.
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
39). This showing a slight similarity to the right of nature by Hobbes. That is, until man is forged into community and civilization. In which the matter of liberty forces certain individuals into chains. How individuals satisfied their state of nature during the development of communities changes to what he describes the descent from the State of Nature. Private property or slavery exemplifies that man surrenders not to the sovereign of one but that of the interest of General Will. As individuals become apart of the civil state liberty is determined by the agreement of laws under the social contract. By abiding by these common laws certain liberty is masked by obedience. While the sovereign suggests unity under General it reveals inequality that men have among each other.
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
This chapter began by introducing the concept of a civil society. Chirico (128) described it as people organising outside of government channels to meet social objectives. She pointed out that social movements in the past have focused on communities within nations while the current movements focus more on involving people from diverse parts of the world in order to promote human welfare regardless of where in the World they happen to be. Chirico shared a quote from Simmel (128) that really resonated with me and, in my opinion, captured such a complex concept into a short and simple sentence. He said that “Humanity is the collective life, the same people who from other perspective are organized into societies, polities economies, families, and so on”. I take this to mean that we are all, basically, the same; we are all humans who are trying to make it through whatever life we have been given to live. People are just people. I think the concept of civil society is one that I wish more people would understand and embrace instead of holding on to prejudice, judgement, and ignorance. According to Chirico (128), individuals who help do so out of a sense of shared experience by recognising that everyone is a victim of global problems and that anyone can help. There are endless ways to participate whether it be through a formal organisation such as NGO’s, The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and The Peace Corps, through non-profit organisations and advocacy, or more individually by making donations, sponsoring a child, mentoring, volunteering in their communities. These are regular people who volunteer, and sometimes risk their lives, to fight for equal rights and treatment for all.