Similarities Between Locke And Tocqueville

Commonly known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke has had a lasting influence in politics. Locke wrote many political documents, including North Carolina’s first constitution and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but one of his most famous documents is the Second Treatise of Government. The Second Treatise, which was written during a political crisis in Europe, was a voluntary acceptance of order where the government respects the people and the people respect the government. This document, along with Locke’s many other documents and ideas, led to a political advancement throughout

Since these rights are given by God, no man has the moral right to seize them from another man. Following this line of thought, Hamilton further extrapolates that any civil government must be established via a voluntary compact, containing self restraining limits so as to protect the natural rights of those ruled, which should be the objective of every civil government. Any government that usurps these boundaries thus violates our natural rights and can, “Confer no obligation to obedience” (Hamilton, 97). Hamilton once again stresses the import of the fact that the sole purpose of human law is to maintain our absolute rights. Masterfully, Hamilton turns around and uses similar solid evidences to examine Parliament. Arguing avidly that Parliament does not protect colonists’ rights, he presents that Parliament is both assumptive in its authority over its citizens without consent, and also takes away their security because they have no voluntary participation in the making of laws. As such, uncontrolled legislators are unbound, and a government that no longer falls in line with the natural laws delegitimizes itself. Hamilton shows that America’s Congress was created in opposition to such a government. In his closing, he contends with his opponent by once again headlining the fact that laws and government which conflict with natural rights (such as Parliament) can not be considered truly

<br>Another means by which Tocqueville believes it is possible to contest individualism is to form associations and write newspapers. He believes that like local governments, associations help people to realize their dependence on their fellow citizens and take interest in public affairs. It is crucial to have institutions and civic duties which force people to look beyond their own interests and think about the problems of the community. "As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote to the world, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found one another out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example and whose language is listened to" (407). Seeing as citizens in democratic societies are independent and weak, they need to form associations in order to have some influence. By bringing people together, new thoughts and ideas are circulated with a stronger force behind them.

As stated before, Locke determined that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. In chapter IX, he gave us the basic concept of government. “First, there wants an established, settled, know law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them (P. 124). This, as he described later, is the legislative branch. He goes into more detail in chapter XI. “Secondly, there wants a

Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville includes Tocqueville’s observations on what American society and culture was like during the 1830’s. Throughout his analysis of America, he draws many outlandish and interesting conclusions regarding what life was like during this time period. For example, in Chapter 18, Tocqueville remarks that citizens in democratic societies are independent, which makes them weak and subsequently uninfluential in society. He goes on to say that in order to combat this, associations must be established to combat individualism and to circulate new thoughts and ideas. All in all, Tocqueville’s claim is certainly valid, but only up to a certain point because there were a select few of individuals that were able to make an influence on society without the help from any associations.

Aristotle provides very unique and compelling arguments for what he believes to be the ideal form of government for a city-state, but because of the time period he was alive, he did not have the necessary knowledge to realize how limited his view of human nature was. Due to its limited power and sole purpose being to protect individuals’ right to own property, which in turn allows individuals to live happy lives, Locke’s form of government is more

To understand their views on revolt, and when it is justified, one must first review the responsibilities each believes the government to have. To Locke, the government works to preserve innate rights, that is, rights

Locke and Jefferson have different ways of evaluating government than the Ayn Rand Institute. Both philosophers believe certain rights are inalienable to all of men, but when government starts to renege on its original intent, people as a whole may come together and overthrow the government. For Locke government starts with a civil association, or a group of like-minded people who want to protect themselves from the dangers that could potentially arise in the state of nature. Each individual that enters into civil society consents and the basis of authority is the determination of the people as a whole, better known as popular sovereignty. Back in Locke’s time it was commonly held that popular sovereignty would lead to chaos and frequent rebellion. In spite of this, Locke argues that popular sovereignty is the best guarantee against unwarranted rebellion since the population would collectively determine the appropriate remedy. Locke reasons that if the decision to revolt were left up to the individual that it would “unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.” To support collectivism, Locke says as long as the society lasts the power each individual relinquished upon entering does not revert back to the individual. Therefore, even though the government has collapsed the “commonwealth [is] still preserved” and the notion of popular sovereignty remains intact. Another strong piece to add to this counterargument would be to discuss Locke’s ideas on the individual right to punish. Since there is no common authority in the state of nature, Locke holds that individuals have the right to punish those who threaten their self-preservation and individual freedom. However prior to entering a civil association, individuals forfeit their right to punish and confer it upon the government. Therefore, the use of individual rights and

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

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

If one compares Locke and Rousseau noticeable similarities and differences can be found. Both men advocate similar ideas with different outcomes regarding the state of nature. Furthermore, Locke and Rousseau both come to distinct actualization and prophecies. Regarding the progression and advancement of mankind. Therefore, by comparing and contrasting these two distinct teachings one can find the true principles behind the state of nature and the natural laws inherent in mankind.

checks and balances, allowing each branch to hold only the power needed to fulfill its

In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He 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.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,