On the other hand, Locke sees man as a creature of reason rather than one of desire wherein he believes that the purpose of the government is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men that are independent of the state. The dichotomy in their beliefs construes their different translations of liberty. In his seminal text, Leviathan, Hobbes maintains that human judgment is distorted to pursue self-interest ends without regard for anything other than the avoidance of pain and the incentive of pleasure. Man can be easily swayed with rhetoric that is neither directed towards public good nor towards the individuals good. Thus, in the state of nature man lived in a chaotic condition of constant fear of death where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short;” the state of perpetual and unavoidable war was unable to allow men to cooperate.
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. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights.
Individual freedom is often seen as the core value of Liberalism. Nevertheless, freedom can be divided into two categories: negative and positive. Negative freedom, which is traditionally associated with Classical Liberalism, advocates the belief in non-interference, the absence of all external constraints upon the individual. This implies that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests free from outside restrictions or pressures. Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom.
Morality is fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law John Locke believed in the existence of a "Natural Law" that transcends any man-made law. Simply put all citizens have a right to "life, liberty and property." If the government is violating the people 's natural rights (life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness), then the people have a right to overthrow the government. Then there is the social contract. The people must do as the government say, the government does not take away the people 's natural rights, Locke allowed taxation to take place by the consent of the majority rather than requiring unanimous consent.
Hence, classical liberalism counters leftist efforts to compel equalization of condition or result (Goodman, 2004). In addition, the Classical Liberalism put emphasize on limited government, free market economics, and the rule of law. It views the International Political System as Non-Hobbesian anarchy. Classical Liberalism theory did not believe that government created individual rights ‘in a moral sense’, but rather that moral rights existed completely independent of government. Thomas Jefferson called these rights "inalienable rights" and indicative of the classical liberal belief that rights do not come from the law, but that the law serves to guard natural individual rights.
The authority and laws of society are only legitimate by consent and can be struck down by the collective will of individuals. He comes to this conclusion about liberty through his belief that all men are born free and equal in the state of nature (Locke, 4). We enter a commonwealth with other people as a means to protect our natural liberty by giving up our right to judge offenders to the state. Montesquieu has a different view on liberty. He agrees with Locke that liberty is being able to do what ones wants without constraint, but goes on to say that liberty within a society is being able to do what one wants with the laws (Montesquieu, XI.3).
The king did not hold absolute power, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes.
While liberals wanted to over through the government, conservatives believed that not every person should receive the same privilege, not every person is the same and therefore, not every person should be created equal. America is viewed as a liberal state. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” This was the strongest reason for the people to bear arms, so that they can be protected from tyranny in the government. People wanted their independence. Intro: The Declaration of Independence shapes our ideal vision in America by letting every individual have unalienable rights, not having to live under a tyrant, and having equality.
This subsequently caused a further disintegration of the Whig party in politics between the period 1783-1815. To conclude, the Whigs lack of political success cannot be blamed on an individual issue. A series of events after the start of the 1780’s led to Whig party splits and a lack of unity. Unity within the party was essential to take office. The French revolution was a major contributor to the Whigs lack of political success as it ont only weakened the party due to loss of members but also due to the exposure internal party problems.
According to Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, those in the state of nature may form a mutually beneficial contract in order to survive. This contract entails creating a government or political authority that would provide for the general body in exchange for some of their natural freedoms. But according to Locke, true equality is in the state of nature, and so an established system would not be fair and equal in regulating an individual’s freedom. Rousseau’s The Social Contract aims to counter this by determining a government that not only upholds liberty, but creates true