Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of war on society
The effect of war on society
The migration of native Americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of war on society
The question has been posed on whether Native Americans have the right to overthrow/rebel the current government. While some may readily agree with this statement on the basis of the mistreatment Native Americans have and continue to face, others disagree for reasons ranging from the disruption of our current society to the Natives never having any right over the land to begin with. By combining both Locke and Hobbes views on conquest/sovereignty by acquisition, an answered can formed on this issue.
To create a legitimate government, Locke believes that people must consent to its formation. This is because no polities nor government can arise without consent. However, in times of war and chaos, this consent is often not taken into account,
…show more content…
He defines this commonwealth as being an institution acquired through fear. This definition is similar to sovereignty by institution since both are formed in fear, however, acquisition is formed in fear of the conquering force while institution is formed in fear of man in the state of nature. (4) Once in power, the conqueror’s dominion after war is despotical, like Locke. This new relationship is that of a master and servant. Hobbes points out that this power is not acquired once the war is over but when the vanquished have surrendered to the conqueror. The conquered are then obliged to stay under the conqueror’s rule because they submitted themselves to it. Contrasting with Locke’s view of conquest, Hobbes believes that the conqueror becomes master of all, this includes those who resisted and those who did not. This is significant because the relationship presented in Locke is shifted; everyone is under the same rule; no one receives harder living arrangements based off their actions prior to surrendering to the conqueror. In the end, Hobbes summarizes sovereignty by acquisition as acquiring land through …show more content…
This argument is significant, especially in connection to Locke, because owning property is important. Locke describes property as a mixture of land and labor. A plot of land becomes someone’s property after they have toiled over it, and not by merely harvesting the fruits from the ground. The belief that Native Americans did not cultivate the land, as Locke would like to believe in regards to his view on property, should not hold any merit in this debate. One can argue that the worth added to the land after European settlement, e.g., transcontinental trading, and cash crops, both which introduced new international currency and markets, was greater than what was already there. However, that is not substantial enough to claim that the land was not their property. Labor is labor and should be seen as such. Just because Europeans utilized the land in a more “efficient” way does not justify them in removing Natives from the land. And while one can argue that majority did not believe in permanent land ownership, they did still practice communal living. The land that they lived on, created communities, e.g., Mississippians, and developed respective lifestyles should be seen as their property, even if they did not legally. With that being said, if the Europeans were just in conquering the Natives, the children of the fighters are still
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government - “life, liberty, and property” - consent of the governed (people are giving permission to the government to rule)
Throughout history the attacks on Native American sovereignty proved to be too much and eventually tribes had to submit. The problems Native American tribes faced when fighting for and dealing with sovereignty in the 18th century are identical to the problems they are facing today. These
Consequently, throughout history there has been many corrupt governments, authoritarian regimes, controlling monarchies and volatile dictators that prove Locke’s principles that once the populace feels there life is being disregarded the majority will organize and revoke the oppressors’ system in the name of freedom. For instance, our founding fathers rejected England’s right to tax therefore they declared their freedoms in writing and once ignored they simply rebelled. As we know the colonies were successful and now we live in the great nation known as, “United States of America.” In Haiti, th...
Therefore the subjects cannot create a sovereign who upholds their covenant- that is a ruler who decides all questions in the commonwealth and whose reign is absolute and permanent. And it does not follow that peace and harmony in civil society can be secured and guaranteed by the adoption of Hobbes's schema, that outlines the ascension from war to peace in the first place -- making Hobbes a Social Covenant Theorist.
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.
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. The...
Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
Hobbes’s government is impossible, firstly, because people have no arbitrary power to transfer. Secondly, a government that is not bound by laws is no government at all since it remains in a state of nature with its citizens. Lastly, the Hobbesian sovereign’s right to take away his subjects’ property makes the establishment of this form of government incongruous because the purpose of the government is the protection of property. Absolute arbitrary government comes about only when the government exceeds its authority and is not something that should be strived for. Therefore, the government, which Hobbes proposes to exit the state of war, would, for Locke, directly introduce or set the stage for civil war. In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government, which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, in Hobbes’s Leviathan, there is no reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign and the citizens forfeit their rights. It is because of these different views on the purpose and origin of government that one can say Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” is a successful confutation of Hobbes’s
Prior to the 1830’s, the United States government did not make it’s aspirations of attaining Indian lands, but rather Indians were given rights to be treated as nations, and protected their rights according to the Constitution. According to the letter to President George Washington from Henry Knox, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Doc B). To add on, the United States believed that “intrusions upon the lands of the friendly Indian tribes, is not only a violation of law, but in direct opposition to the policy for the government towards its savage neighbor” (Doc G) was considerate of the Indians’ territories. Therefore, this indicates that the government of the United States did not want to take any risk and was rather cautious against having the desire to obtain the Natives’ land.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
The Native Americans who occupied America before any white settlers ever reached the shores “covered the land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell paved floor” (1). These Native people were one with nature and the Great Spirit was all around them. They were accustom to their way of life and lived peacefully. All they wish was to live on their land and continue the traditions of their people. When the white settler came upon their land the values of the Native people were challenged, for the white settlers had nothing in common and believe that it was their duty to assimilate the Native Americans to the white way of life.
...rbitrary power to transfer. Secondly, a government which is not bound by standing laws is really no government at all because it remains in a state of nature with its citizens. Thirdly, the Hobbesian sovereign’s right to take away his subjects’ property makes the establishment of this form of government absurd, because the purpose of government is primarily the protection of property. Absolute arbitrary government comes about when the legislature exceeds its authority. A legislature that abuses its power against it’s subjects’ interests is guilty of rebellion. In essence then, the government which Hobbes proposes to exit the state of war, would, for Locke either directly introduce or set the stage for civil war.
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.
This land which the had been reserved for the Indians was now being distributed by the government. There were thousands of landless and hungry Indians due to the white taking over their land. The federal government never removed the illegal settlers, instead, they forced the Natives to sign a new treaty that surrendered more of the Native American’s land. Treaty after treaty the Americans pushed aside the Natives and did not fulfil their promise. The eagerness to enlarge the horizon of the United States and the invasion of white people due to the gold rush, troubled the Indians and sent them into a disastrous downward spiral (Garraty 405, Lecture-21