View this Free Essay in PDF format

This free essay has been submitted by: Guest User

Liberty

The concept of liberty has been explored and defined by political theorists for centuries. Two such political thinkers are John Locke, who wrote Two Treatise of Government, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote The Social Contract. Locke and Rousseau have both similar and different ideas on how society should be constructed and how liberties should be granted or protected. Locke, for example, sees property as man's labor and should be secured while Rousseau views property more negatively, blaming it for the cause of men to leave his perfect State of Nature. Their view of the human character influences their perception of liberty and the creation of a government from the State of Nature. Rousseau has a more optimistic view of human nature when compared to Locke. Their approaches to the view of liberty determine their ideas of what a State of Nature and a Social Contract constitutes, since Locke believed in defending negative liberties while Rousseau wanted to protect positive liberties.

A State of Nature, according to Locke, is "a state of perfect freedom...a state also of equality...no one having more [power] than another" (Locke 8). Every man, therefore, is born free and equal in this state, with equal liberties in his pursuit of life. Despite the fact that Locke believes this State of Nature is an ideal place to live, people often engage in conflicts with each other for the "preservation of [themselves]" (Locke 9). According to Locke, people have the liberty to remain alive, and is allowed to execute just punishments when their liberties or freedom are infringed by another. Thus, if one man "attempts to get another man into his absolute power...[then he] put himself in a state of war" (Locke 14). Locke thinks that the two most fundamental liberties of self-preservation and property must be protected. When these liberties are threatened, then the wronged man may pursue justice in which ever way he sees fit, since there is no third party to establish just punishments for the offenses. For that reason, Locke says that "civil government is [the] proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature" (Locke 12). Due to the inability to suitably maintain the liberties of self-preservation and property and the hassles of trying to pursue justice, Locke maintains that we become "naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others" (Locke 13).

Rousseau is similar to Locke in that he asserts that man "is born free and equal" (Rousseau 49). Unlike Locke, who thinks that a state of nature is good but inconvenient, Rousseau asserts that everything about a state of nature is good. Humans in such a natural state are considered by Rousseau to be "savages," for they are not constrained by laws. Therefore their freedom and the liberty are unlimited and unbounded. Like Locke, Rousseau also believes that "man's first law is to watch over his own preservation" (Rousseau 80). Unlike Locke, Rousseau has a more negative view of private property and blames it as the cause of humans to leave this perfect state of nature to a Social Contract-"state of war...arise...only from property relations" (Rousseau 56). Therefore we have to give up a faultless state of unlimited freedom and liberties due to the desire to protect property.

Both Locke and Rousseau agree that consent is needed in order for humans to form a Social Contract. However, Locke says that we enter into such a Social Contract due to inconveniences of the state of nature over the protection of liberties. Because only by forming a Social Contract could humans work together to further protect their liberties from being encroached upon by outside forces. His most important reason was the liberty of preserving private property and self-preservation. He defines property as "the labor that removes it out of that common state nature left it in" (Locke 20). Despite his belief that "no man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part, so that it was impossible for any man...to encroach upon the right of another" (Locke 22), there are people who unjustly intrude on the liberties and rights of others and their property. That is why it would be necessary to have a Social Contract that could enforce and punish those who act unjustly to another. For Locke, by entering into a Social Contract, we are not giving up many rights, since the purpose of the social contract is to protect and defend these existing liberties. The only right we would give up upon entering a social contract is that of giving and enforcing punishments, which would be delegated to the state. While trying to "seek the preservation of their property...makes [men] willingly give up every one his single power of punishing" (Locke 67). The preservation of property is so important to men it is worth giving up the liberty to punish. Nevertheless, men "by quitting the state of nature entered into society...should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity" (Locke 50). However, in Locke's Social Contract, there are limitations to majority rule and the protection of certain rights do not allow individual's to tinker with it, for the state must always preserve those rights. Hence he is defending the idea of negative liberty, or non-interference. People still have to give up certain liberties, such as that of unrestricted freedom, in order to maintain a Social Contract that would benefit the whole of society.

Rousseau's Social Contract is vastly different from Locke's. While he agrees that the people's consent is required before entering into a social contract, the similarities between the two philosophers end there. Locke emphasizes that there should be strong protection of certain rights whereas Rousseau is more flexible and said citizens in a Social Contract could add or subtract rights as they see fit because he thinks that "people are never corrupted, but...is often misled" (Rousseau 72). However, this makes the rights rather tenuous since rights could be granted as easily as it could be taken away. Rousseau says that we should give up negative liberty, or non-interference, in order to gain civil liberty, security, and legal entitlement to property. His support of positive liberty sharply contrasts with Locke's need to protect people's negative liberties. Rousseau also has a more idealistic view of society and that people should work towards a common good. Upon entering into a Social Contract, the people must give up all their liberties from the State of Nature and create new rights and liberties by the general will. Rousseau says that a general will has to be for the common good of society and should not be about individual interests. In this way, the "general will is always rightful and always tends to the public good" (Rousseau 72). This goes against the point made by Locke of putting pre-set limits on majority-or constraint majoritism, because he thinks that majorities could sometimes pursue their interests and take away the liberties and rights of others with their numbers. In Rousseau's Social Contract, consequently, "the social pact establishes equality among the citizens in that they all pledge themselves under the same conditions and must all enjoy the same rights" (Rousseau 86).

Locke and Rousseau have similar political theories, including the idea of a State of Nature and a Social Contract made by the consent of all. However, they also differ in that Locke stresses the need to defend the rights already inherent in the state of nature, including that of property. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes in the ideal goodness of the state of nature and views property as the downfall of such a perfect state. He also claims that humans are innately good and that as a general will, should work towards a common good. Therefore, he thinks the general will should have the ability to change and deliberate on current rights. Whereas Locke holds that there should be limitations on the majority to prevent them from taking over in pursue of their own interests. However, despite their differences, their political philosophies have influenced many of democratic governments that exist today.

Add a Review for this free essay

Name: Rate: Select 10 (Good) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Bad)

Comments Characters Left
Verify:*

Sticky Note Text....