Weber And Legitimacy Essay, Research Paper

Locke and Rousseau -

Compare/Contrast

By: Bec

E-mail: [email protected]

Although their ideologies sometimes clashed, and they came from two

distinctly different epochs in the course of political development, John Locke

and Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s fundamental arguments address several similar

points. These five main themes which significantly overlap and thus cannot be

addressed separately, are the 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. Despite these

contradictions in belief, both men proved to be greatly influential in the course

of the United States? democratic development. In both Locke?s and

Rousseau?s state of nature, the only agreement they have is that men are born

free and equal, with no higher authority with the exception of divine power.

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. If the

aforementioned ultimate goal were ever achieved, though, it would not last

because it would degenerate into a state of war. Locke and Rousseau?s

foremost point of agreement is that the people must demonstrate consent in

order for a successful government to begin to evolve. 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. Perhaps the issue over which

Rousseau and Locke most fervently disagree is the role of government. Both

philosophers establish that government is the ultimate way to ensure justice,

morality, liberty, and protect the rights of the citizens, but that is where the

similarities in the men?s tenets end. 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.

Rousseau?s aforementioned theory is very similar to the government the

United States has today. Oftentimes individual freedoms are conceded for the

good of society as a whole. 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. Locke and Rousseau

extensively contradicted each other on the concept of the nature of war, also.

Rousseau pragmatically claimed that a state of war can only occur between

two or more nations, never among individuals. Locke dissented, asserting that

the state of war is simply a revolution against an invasion on sovereignty, be it

individual or governmental. Although the ideas of both Locke and Rousseau

elusively present themselves in U.S. government today, 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. Several of John Locke?s ideas

also appear predominantly in American politics today. In The Second

Treatise, Locke makes allusion to a need for some protection of victims?

rights, a topic that has been heatedly debated in the modern American

political system for some time. Locke also comes out as a strong proponent

of capital punishment, another issue that has been timelessly controversial in

our society. He also 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.

32f