It ultimately proved that the king’s power can be limited through ... ... middle of paper ... ...ocial Contract by only allowing powers from the consent of the governed, giving the people the right to abolish a government that didn’t suit their interests, and allowing them to institute a new one. The document supported Laws of Nature or Natural Rights. The Declaration of Independence stated that the government was to provide safety and happiness to its people. As said in the document, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This document, unlike the other documents, was fully on Social Contract. The government was no longer ruled by someone for their own interests, nor did it contain a bit of right to the Divine Theory.
Whenever I look at John Locke’s political view, it surprises me that he was able view government the way he did because he grew up in the renaissance. During the renaissance period, people were not interested in protecting property; their focus was on their position on the hierarchical social ladder. So the fact that his political views so closely resemble a premature form of democracy amazes me. John Locke understood that in a government there needs to be sovereign authority but he realized that sovereign authority should not have absolute power. With that in mind, John Locke constructed a blueprint for a government that provides for the pursuit and securing of life, liberty, and property.
This ideal was the basis of the revolution sparked from Enlightenment ideals. Locke believed that man had a set of rights, which were given to a man when he is born. These rights cannot be taken away from a man based on social class, race, or anything else. When the revolutions started, the people believed that the king had been infringing on their natural rights. “All men may be restrained from invading others rights” (Locke.
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that all people are born naturally good because they are born as empty slates which they learn experiences to fill it up instead of being outright evil.. John Locke’s philosophy supported the government of democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy states that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke states that people can be trusted since all people are naturally deluxe but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will
Founding Father Samuel Adams observed that the rule of law means that “There shall be one rule of Justice for the rich and the poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough.” Many people believe that our founders wanted to be governed instead of men, because they could make the government weak enough so they could rely on the constitution. Another question many people ask is who were our founders, what did they do for us, and why did they not want men to govern us, and what makes the way we were governed different from the other countries? The question is about to be answered about who were our founding fathers and what they did for us, why we were not governed by men, and what makes us different ...
Big brother does not just control what is going on in the society he controls the history of the world as well. He rewrote history to how he wanted the people to perceive it. The reason it explains Big Brother in one sentence is because it shows that someone, something, or some idea just wants complete and utter control. In America this could never happen, because everyone is so independent and not afraid to voice their opinions. If America could control what we thought was right and wrong they would have done it long, long ago.
Locke never allowed the idea of slavery slide by him untouched. He stated that “every man should be free and not be governed by another individual”. Locke touched on many different topics in his writing, but the most important ones were men being equal, men having equal rights and all individuals just being one big whole family. Locke also declared different types of governments; if the power was placed in an appointed leader’s hands, it was considered as a democracy. If the power was given to a few regular men, it was considered as an oligarchy... ... middle of paper ... ...ns.
However, we should not feel this way because Jefferson also stated that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. "(2) Jefferson then went on and stated "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government" (2). It is not as if people do not have problems with the government. We protest the same things that Thoreau did: paying for wars, services that we personally do not use, corruption in our government, etc. Yet our society today does not use productive means to invoke our "Right of the People" and demand a "better government".
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected.
If men are naturally self interested, would they ever truly be able to give up all of their liberties for a sense of security? The prisoner’s dilemma arises where the theory could work if all acted on behalf of society, but if one decides to pursue self interest, then the society’s outcome worsens as a whole. Moreover, Hobbes allows for no civil involvement between the people and the sovereign within the society, and the people are bent to the will of a tyrant who they can only hope will serve them justly. With Hobbes’ foundation of bad and self interested men as the natural basis of civilization, achieving peace can only be met with the removal of all human freedoms. In practice, this has the possibility to