Individual liberty is the central concern of both Montesquieu and Locke, but each has a different approach to achieving it. Locke’s universalism and Montesquieu’s balance of power both seek to maximize the freedom and liberty in society. But really how free are we under universalism? Are those in the minority truly free and equal in society? Is it better to live in the extreme of an ideal or one more tempered? I will seek to answer some of these questions bring us to the conclusion that moderation in both universalism and the balance of power is best at preserving individual liberty and forming the best government.
Locke defines liberty in two ways; firstly as liberty in nature where man is free from a superior power and lives only under the laws of nature, secondly as liberty in society where man is under no law or legislative power, except under those to which he has consented (Locke, 22). Locke is stressing that true liberty is the supreme freedom of the individual who must only act in accordance with the laws of nature. 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). He argues that true liberty is living under political and civil...
... middle of paper ...
...er in his essay Montesquieu and the Concept of Civil Society elaborates on this by suggesting that obedience is better formed through negotiation and bargaining. He goes on to say that leaders are more informed and create better legislation by hearing diverse opinions (Richter: 1998, p. 38). One can see that there needs to be not only moderation in universal liberty, but also in the balance of power. Factions within Montesquieu’s ideal balanced society need to recognize the necessity of moderation for the balance of power to work. Without some form of cooperative consensus in a diverse society, such as Canada, we risk suffering under the tyranny of the majority and sliding into democratic despotism. Only by recognizing that liberty of the individual is better served through the cooperative balance of power between diverse groups will we truly live in a free society.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
... A successful strategy in the accommodation of national minorities within a liberal democracy could be founded upon mutual trust, recognition and sound financial arrangements. However, a certain degree of tension between central and regional institutions may remain as a constant threat in this complex relationship since they entertain opposing aims. The federal governments determination to protect its territorial integrity, and its will to foster a single national identity among its citizens clashes with Quebec’s wish to be recognized as a separate nation and decide upon its political destiny and to foster its distinct identity (Guibernau pg.72). Moreover, if the ROC and the federal government can come to an agreement on terms that satisfy the majority and an identity that encompasses the heart of a country; Canada will continue to exist with or without Quebec.
The American Revolutionary system served as a model, exemplifying the potential for great change and consolidation. The United States Constitution also provided a template for the French National Assembly. Montesquieu’s proposal of the separation of powers, as well as democratic conventions with representatives of the French people provided protection for the people against their government, securing “the greatest freedom and security for a state” (Duiker and Spielvogel 463). According to Article XV, people possessed the right to hold government officials accountable for their actions, developing a moral incentive as well as a foundational right for a more democratic society (National Assembly). France’s preparation for their independence showed a strong desire for equality and representation that mirrored that of the United
His system of three branches substantially influenced the United States’ government as we know it today as he seeked to modify the system by assigning different roles to the three different branches with an equivalence of powers; furthermore, his system managed to maintain law and order, liberty of the public, and the property of the individuals without creating violence and corruption with the government. Each of the branches also has it’s own job of casting votes, making laws, and ensuring that these laws are constitutional and beneficial to it’s citizens; as stated by Rousseau: “The conjuring tricks of our political theorists are very like that; they first dismember the Body politic by an illusion worthy of a fair, and then join it together again we know not how”. He points out that Montesquieu’s ideas are just an illusion that lures people into thinking that the branches are separated but is actually branches separated as one whole system; despite Rousseau’s accuracy and attempt to denigrate Montesquieu’s theory, this manipulative system didn’t cause corruptions, oppress
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
John Locke is best seen as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” making him one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers during the 17th-century, considered as the era of modern philosophy. Locke puts his trust in human reasoning because he believes that all humans are born equal, stating that no one has power above another person and that they have the right to commit the actions that each one pleases to do so. In the Second Treatise of Government Locke says, “we must consider, what state 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, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 8). Locke explains how men are reasonable when they make decisions, leaving it entirely up to the person to do as ...
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
The writings of Locke on the subject of revolution in his second treatise of government were one of the founding and seminal texts on the “right” of a populace to resist the power of the state if a government was to overstep its defined power and become an unjust tyranny. Kant, however, took what could be labelled a surprising view for a republican and made the denial of the logical and legal coherence of this “right”, as well as the potential harm caused by the rejection of what Kant saw as an individual's moral duty in maintaining the rule of law by the preservation of a government. This essay aims to examine the arguments put forward by both thinkers, draw out their key foundations and assess their coherence with the component parts of their arguments, as well as their wider philosophy. It is my conclusion that whilst Locke's stance on the matter clearly stems from his key ideological tenets of inalienable individual rights and the duty of self preservation, Kant's argument sits uneasily with his stance on moral autonomy, as well as leaving certain areas (such as the right to resist on the grounds of injustice) untouched, and thus is lacking in both scope and coherence when placed in comparison to the writings of Locke.
We can say that Locke conceived all the natural rights as things which an individual brings with him from birth, and consequently as indefeasible or inviolable claims upon both society and government. Such claims can never be justly set aside, since society itself exists to protect them; they can be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give them effective protection. In other words, the “life, liberty and estate” of one person can be limited only to make effective the equally valid claims of another person to the same right.
John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth century England. The crux of these arguments either way have centered on Chapter 5 in the Second Treatise, entitled ‘Of Property’.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.