User:Qianli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lock:  the private individual is master of his own property (legitimately appropriated from the common gift, through events independent of the act of contract).  To the government that protects him he should pay duties.  Magistrate comes in the form generally agreed upon, but hence becomes a specialized function.  Magistrate’s concentration of power is checked by its separation into branches opposed to each other in interest, yet sharing common allegiance to the contract.  Private individual enjoys private “liberty”--- free from interference of his own affairs and from infringement of his rights. Hence the equal exchange for the “natural rights” which man relinquished.  Man still retains power to retain natural right, and much of his capacity to subsist in the state of nation, once reverted.  Limited government. With a civil society separated in manners, functions from it.  Political authority distinct from patriarchal authority and property rights.  Liberty is a separate faculty from democracy (confer “right”).  Competitive.

Rousseau:  the private individual has alienated his possession to the society, and is recognized as the proprietor of this possession.  He places his private interests under the general, public interest.  The magistrate is an instrument firmly controlled by the public---the sovereign.  There is no remarkable divisions among the body politic, which is essentially one. Individuals are but infinitely small cells free to reason on their own behalf, and eventually contribute to the general will.  Direct democracy.  Once man is born in a collective state, he is forever changed and unable to revert to the state of nature.  Liberty should be essentially the same as political participation and equality of conditions.  Cooperative.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1) http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bernstein_on_locke.html Alvin Bernstein

Locke: Government simply ends a state of nature in which dangerous self-judgment is the rule. Government is the humble servitor of freedom. The worship of that concocted divine ground called the state is excluded.

Locke's stress on the private doings of individuals eliminates blanket condemnation of selfish interests as sinful.

Religion becomes a private practice just as peacefully pursuing a trade is a private practice. The conclusion is that all religions should be tolerated so long as they do not endanger public order by becoming violent.

Rousseau, the state of nature lacked the slightest tincture of civilization. Individuals wandered without property, without foresight, without morality except for the quality of pity.

What caused this idyllic state of nature to decline and cease to exist? Rousseau's answer was the curse of privale property, the stimulant to corrupt civilization. The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'this is mine', and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society [See Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, contained in the volume Social Contract and Discourses, Everyman's Library, 1990, p.84.].

Private property, thought Rousseau, results in the exploitation of the propertyless by the propertied.

The 20th century may be viewed as the counterattack of the bully boys, whether clerical-fascist, Nazi, Communist, Christian, Jewish or Islamic fundamentalist, corrupt unionist, or whoever else comes to the mind of the reader.

Rousseau realized the impossihility of returning to a state of nature. The alternative he chose was psychologically close, specifically, direct democracy with an ultimate totalitarian twist.

Any party rising to supremacy by force can dictatorially tell the people what constitutes the will of the people.

What Rousseau really wanted was the fusion of individuals into an undifferentiated social mass whereby individluality dies and selfish strivings are no longer apparent. "part of the whole and only conscious of the common life."[ See Rousseau's Emile, Everyman's Library, 1995, p.10.]

Rousseau's conception of society, since its composition is hidden from view, is akin to a spiritual mass. It is like God stationing himself on earth, possibly a more oppressive phenomenon than God apart from us in heaven.

They are no longer adequately seen as discrete entities and are consequently dispensable. Conscience no longer plays a role when humankind is shorn of individuality.

Bertrand Russell in 1945 very sensibly classified Rousseau as: the inventor of the political philosophy of the pseudo-democratic dictatorships.

his distrust of intelligence and approval of instinct, his preference for an essentially spiritual society excluding individuality and individual interests,

2) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumfive.htm Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation John Locke wrote that the "state of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which humans can discover through reason. On one hand, he presents the social contract as an improvement over the state of nature. However, it is not clear why individuals would want to leave such an idyllic state of nature in the first place. Locke does admit that the state of nature can easily degenerate into a state of war, which some philosophers claim was Locke's justification for the social contract. However, this would still contradict Locke's claim that the state of nature was idyllic.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau argued that humans who lived in the "state of nature" were solitary and non-competitive. They had no need or desire to compete because their population was small, which made the earth's resources relatively plentiful. Indeed, Rousseau would argue that human competition, inequality and misery only increased as the population and modern society grew. He thus evoked the image of the "noble savage," the individual who lives alone in the wild and is more dignified and content than his socialized relatives.

3) http://w3.ham.muohio.edu/~vascikgs/Rousseau Locke and Rousseau

Jeffersonian democracy

Jacobin radicalism

Cult of the noble savage (Benjamin Franklin)

Naturalism, sentiment vs. Reason

This sovereign entity has a set of needs and ideas expressed at the General Will, which was more that the sum of individuals needs and desires. How is one to know the General Will? For Rousseau, government is the executive power for administering the General Will for the Sovereign. This is both wildly democratic AND totalitarian. For Rousseau, moral corruption and injustice arise from inequality; make all equal and these evils will disappear.

Locke and Rousseau disagree on the origin of laws. Locke sees these as socially determined, Rousseau imagines a lawgiver. Rousseau wants people to disregard their interests and vote for what is best. Locke believes that people voting in their self-interests will come to the best. Rousseau is unclear about relationship of Sovereign to government. Inserts notion of popular assemblies. His sense of Roman history is WAY off. Rousseau desires a state, public religion that encourages good citizenship.

What does Locke say? #1. Every human being has the natural, inherent right to Life, Liberty, and Property

1. 2. God gave us the earth as a common gift. Individuals created private property by mixing their labor with part of the common property. This gave individuals a right to private property, but only if they left some for others and they did not let their property spoil.

1. 3. Man's desire for property necessitates government, which serves to protect property.

1. 4. Thus, government is the instrument of and should be limited to property owners, who alone possess the ability to judge events.

1. 5. No government may take property away without the consent of the owners.

3) http://ctct.essortment.com/lockeandrouss_rqkw.htm The philosophies of Locke and Rousseau

Rousseau argues that by everyone surrendering his or her rights to the sovereign equally they maintain freedom. He believes man has the most freedom in the state of nature, but because man has the ability to rationalize and the desire to be social, he must enter a social contract with others in order to have a free and equal society.

Rousseau believes that for man to exit a State of Nature he must agree to a Social Contract. Rousseau’s “Social Contract” in the simplest terms is, “each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and in our capacity, we receive each member as indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau. P. 192).

). Unfortunately, this Social Contract will require all individuals to relinquish their rights to the legislative whish is to be made up of all citizens, and raises a question about personal autonomy and freedom in Rousseau’s philosophy.

These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one, the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others. (Rousseau, John-Jacque. “The Social Contract.” The Social Contract and Discourses, P. 191)

each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over which he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has. (Rousseau. P.192)

by giving up the freedom of Natural Liberty an individual gains Civil Liberty. Rousseau argues in chapter eight of the Social Contract, What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, from civil liberty. . . (Rousseau, P.196)

Locke believes that the purpose of government is to protect property and that societies were set up to avoid civil or foreign wars that may occur over the dispute of property.

Locke believes that at the beginning man lived in common ownership of the earth (Locke, 18). Man is blessed with the ownership of property in his own person (Locke, 19). Rousseau argues, the contrary, saying man is not property. When man combines his labour, with land that is common to all men, he appropriates property in the land he tilled (Locke, 20).

Locke believes man in the State of Nature has the right to: as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by god for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke, 20)

Locke’s argument would be valid if there was good and enough for others to labour upon and gain wealth (Locke, 20), but since there is not because of unequal property, he has merely set up a system in which the government could be overthrown, but wealth maintained in the same hands.

If no man should appropriate more than he can use and beyond this share is for others (Locke, 20), what right does man have to massive property when others are starving and have none? Locke would probably argue that the fruits of their labour will grant them property and that they should work harder, but on what property should they labour upon, if all property has been divided? Today, farmers are paid not to grow or to burn excess grain and food. Does not this unused share of land and the right to labour upon it then belong to others?

Rousseau creates a utopian society designed to give all men equal representation under the law. Rousseau claims that from Civil Liberty man gains “what is called Moral Liberty which alone makes him master of himself; for the impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty” (Rousseau, P.196). In the state of nature, there are certain natural inequalities, strength, age, and sex that allow some individuals to have more liberties than others hold. The social contract removes these inequalities, and, because all inequalities are given up before forming a Commonwealth, it makes all men equal under the law.

. The society Locke creates, known as capitalism, is a system of greed and unequality that can not be justified. No man has the right to appropriate more than his share. If he does this takes away from the ability of others to self persevere and we will have reverted back to a state of war that both Locke and Rousseau claim was the reason for setting up a society. The Second Treatise on Government should be renamed the Second Treatise on Maintaining, Greed, Wealth, and Power

4) http://eserver.org/philosophy/rousseau-and-locke.txt Rousseau and Locke: The General Will In the derivation of the General Will, Rousseau emphasizes that every man is free. Therefore, every subject is equal and has no more power or influence on the General Will than any other citizen in the society.

Personal freedom comes from humans' basic instincts and natural selfishness. An individual acts only if he benefits. Rousseau also called this freedom a state of nature. The second freedom, social freedom, is achieved when an individual obeys the desires of the General Will.

It is at this next point where Locke and Rousseau differ. According to Rousseau, natural freedom is acquired by allowing the General Will to be the ruling factor of a government. In order to enter into Rousseau's social contract, personal freedom must be alienated. By disregarding the state of nature, the powers of each individual is directed towards a common interest. Rousseau notes that social freedom is superior to a state of nature, and that in a state of nature people are not completely free because they are ruled by their desires instead of by reason. The General Will is rational and should then be the ruling body. Locke differs by stating natural freedom is obtained when the natural law is obeyed. Locke does not need people to alienate their personal freedom, he just wants it to be entrusted to the natural law. The natural law preserves the freedoms of each individual in order to preserve all of mankind. If the natural laws are carried out against their wills, the people have the obligation and the right to alter the natural law.

Both Locke and Rousseau agree that the only way for a social contract to insure the rights of the General Will is for complete involvement. Rousseau insists those who do not join the pact are ignorant to the advantages of a social contract. These madman must be forced to see the light of the social contract and thus forced to be free. In a more harsh view, Locke views the failure to join the social contract an attack on the preservation of mankind and this violator should be punished. This is because those who violate the natural law, violate the preservation of mankind.

Rousseau believes in order to fully express the General Will, there must be a complete democracy with no representation. representation eliminates the purity of the General Will.

Another point that Rousseau develops that is too idealistic is the request for people to abandon their personal freedom in order to sacrifice for social freedom. Disregarding our state of nature is like disregarding our basic instincts or our primal urges. People are instinctively selfish and to eliminate this fact would be very difficult.

5) http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~bzbriger/papers/property.html Locke & Rousseau on Property

The essential difference is that for Locke, property is natural and therefore political society is widely legitimate, while for Rousseau property is a fiction and therefore government is more or less a fraud.

According to Locke, there is a self-evident, eternal and natural right to property. Locke's definition is wide and inclusive. Property to Locke is not simply land, wealth, tools and physical resources. Rather, our living bodies, even all our rights and freedoms fit his notion of property, because all of these things are used toward our preservation. Locke specifies that this process is natural also in the sense that it "does not depend on the express consent of all the Commoners (paragraph 28)". Locke says the introduction of money eliminates this problem, because money does not spoil (paragraph 47). We may now acquire unlimited property by selling anything perishable before it becomes useless.

Rousseau makes it clear that he sees property as neither eternal nor absolutely natural, and therefore not fully even a legitimate right. Rather than a self-evident truth, obvious even in the state of nature, the concept of property was invented.

He also suggests that since the amount of land and resources in the world are in fact limited, to take property without the direct consent of all people is to steal from everyone else.

Farmers and non-farmers became dependent on each other. In this way, property is an important part of the process whereby division of labor develops, creating a complex and materially prosperous.

The invention of property and its direct results (a surplus of wealth, a division of labor, and interdependence) bring about conflict, inequality, and a wasteful and miserable state of war. The state of war emerges from the inevitably unequal distribution of property, where a few people are able to accumulate excessive wealth leading others to unite against them to try to take what they need. Therefore, even the people who become rich do not truly benefit, overall, from the institution of property. "The rich in particular must have felt how disadvantageous to them it was to have a perpetual war in which they alone paid all the costs, and in which the risk of losing one's life was common to all and the risk of losing one's goods was personal" (page 69).

From this state of war Rousseau draws the link from property to government. As the wealthy had so much to lose from the state of war, they undertook "the most thought out project that ever entered the human mind (page 69)" and encouraged everyone else to join together and form a civil government. The poor were easily convinced of this because of the desperation of their situation, but the rich were the true benefactors because their property was now protected (page 69-70).

In regard to legitimate government, Rousseau would disagree with Locke's statement that "the great and chief end of [...] Government, is the Preservation of [...] Property." (paragraph 124).

Unequal wealth, an inevitable effect of property, is what Rousseau blames for corrupting government into despotism and away from accountability to this original compact, allowing it to focus instead on the protection of the rich (page 76).

Locke also derives his vision of government from a state of war, but he obviously does not place blame on the emergence of property. Since Locke sees property as natural, he does not mention it as an explicit part of the problem. Locke's State of War simply arises from the unjust use of force (paragraph 19). What quality defines the State of Nature for Locke is not an absence of property, but the absence of an impartial judge.

Though limiting people's natural freedom, it is maintaining the overall natural order (i.e. private property) by keeping the problem of illegitimate or excessive us of force under control (. Locke does not mention severe, unwarranted inequality or a complete destruction of the natural order in civil society as Rousseau does.

Finally Locke says that the governed have the right to replace their sovereign specifically when that sovereign imposes interferes with the right to property (paragraph 222). This is in stark opposition to Rousseau who sees the protection of property as the tendency of government that makes it corrupt, not legitimate. Here we can see just how different the political theories that Locke and Rousseau arrive at are from each other, and how much of this rests on their very different ideas about property.

6) http://www.free-essays-free-essays.com/dbase/6c/pbk32.shtml Compare/Contrast

five main themes: state of nature, the basis for the development of government, the primary intent of government, the state of war, and the ultimate effect of the state on the individual and vice versa.

Locke adamantly believed that in nature, anarchy and a strong sense of insecurity among the people was prevalent. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that people are unable to live life to it’s fullest in the chaotic state of nature, and no rights are inherent.

For Locke, nature was an ideal, a utopia, of sorts, the ultimate goal, while for Rousseau, it was an unnatural and tumultuous ordeal that could neither prevail in theory or practice.

Locke maintained that this permission was generally tacit, implied solely by remaining a member of the civil society, or living under a government’s rules. Ultimately, the first formation of government is by the consent of all. Rousseau states that consent must be explicit to form a community at first, also presuming that since the lives of people are unable to live their lives to the fullest potential in nature, that forming a community and government is the only logical means by which to form a fulfilling and meaningful life for all. Locke took a stance similar to that of modern-day republicans and libertarians. He believed the role of government is to create a perfect equilibrium between protecting the individual’s natural rights and as well as maintaining security and protecting the individual’s property. Rousseau, on the other hand, adhered to a greater reverence for the establishment of society, and felt that individual rights are subservient to the rights of society as a whole.

In a state of nature, he claimed, citizens’ rights are nonexistent, for there is no structure to foster them, and moreover, rights are derived from society. They do not occur naturally. He also believed that society must come together to find a general will, or the closest facsimile thereof, for no group of people have or will ever be able to reach a consensus as to what is best for all. Rousseau’s general will is really very idealistic, as it is not the sum of individual wills, but rather one for the overall public good. In short, he believed that one must sacrifice natural freedom for civil freedom.

Rousseau also held a negative view of human nature, claiming that that historically executives have cared very little about the best interest of their people. He did not believe, though, that an executive is sovereign, but that right lies in the people. Subsequently, Rousseau maintained that every government is subject to change that will inevitably occur when the will of the people changes, or when an executive doesn’t follow the general will.

Although each individual in the U.S. today may not agree to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, we are bound to the rules that the sovereign, the people, have created.

the concepts stemming from Rousseau’s severe distrust of government manifest themselves strongly in American political culture. As a result of his theories concerning the executive’s natural tendency to abuse power, elected officials are held much more accountable for their actions, and they are heavily scrutinized to ensure they are maintaining the public good.

Locke placed a very strong emphasis on limited government, which is a fundamental component of the ideologies of both the modern republican and libertarian parties. Despite the fact that Locke and Rousseau’s ideas clearly exemplify both sides of the modern political spectrum (Locke representing the right, and Rousseau the left), a balance between Locke’s desire for protection of the individual liberties and Rousseau’s need for a structured society had managed to balance itself out quite well.