Analysis of Differnt Forms of Liberty

John Locke’s idea of Natural Rights created a whole new aspect of how the government should be constructed. Natural Rights is the freedoms people are born with and should be protected by the government, if not then the citizens have the right to overthrow the government since their rights are not being preserved. This Enlightenment ideal is an important aspect in both today’s world and during revolutionary periods

This paper is about John Locke who was a philosopher in the 17-century. He was an Englishmen and his ideas formed the basic concept for the government and laws, which later allowed colonist to justify revolution. I agree with what Locke is saying because everybody should be able to have their own freedom and still respect the freedom of other people. John said, “Individuals have rights, and their duties are defined in terms of protecting their own rights and respecting those of others”. This paper will present to you information about his enlightenment, personal information, and how we as people feel about his decisions.

Though many be divided in their opinions and ideas, the common thread among the thoughts of men is that their truest aspiration is to be free. As Locke argues, this freedom is not defined as being unrestrained by laws, but to be free under the law. Under the rule of the law, men can be free from the danger that other men impose upon them and their property. Such freedom is obtained when there is a system of laws to control unforeseen malicious deeds. This is the freedom and security that the larger authority of the English law offers to us.

Liberty is in inalienable right of each and every person, and is the pre-political concept that gives us intrinsic worth.

2. They felt the national government was too far away from the people and therefore couldn't be monitored by them

The idea of liberty stems from the balance of power and equality among those who support this philosophy. The Constitution created a start for the United States to give liberty to the people, but the idea did not elaborate for the future of its citizens. The federalist believed that this power the constitution states should belong to the elite and intelligent individuals, thus creating a strong central government. Despite the strong support for the Federalist, Anti-Federalist believed such liberty should be shared equal among the people and not on the central government. For this reason, the constitution can be argued to have restricted American liberty because the constitution was not fully developed, leaving many to believe that the liberty was not guaranteed to everyone.

These intellectuals attempted to generate an explanation for the purpose of government and expressed their ideal political structure to find a solution to the inequalities in the distribution of power. The changing intellectual and social perceptions of the human condition led to new insights and questions of the way in which humans were ruled: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau 2). This conveys The Philosophe belief that liberty is lost when political rule is too strict, to the point where one is unable to truly live. John Locke deduced in his two Treatises on Government that humans have natural born rights to life, liberty and property (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). His ideal government protected these natural rights and permitted the freedom of its people to conduct their lives in a way that they see as best fit. He believed that the government existed to serve the people’s will, thus the power laid in the majority (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). Thomas Hobbes had an opposing view to that of Locke’s government. Hobbes advocated for the monarchy and absolutism, as this form provides strong political stability (Elahi 2). He believed that the people were indebted to the government and protected by the ruler, only if they surrendered their rights and freedoms under a social contract (Elahi 3). Jean

John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

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 Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.

Locke’s main discussions of freedom took place in his work entitled Two Treatises on Government. These views were built upon the view of a natural state in which every individual maintained a state of natural freedom. In this natural state, each individual was free to make decisions and choose actions without any constraints. Locke felt that under this view every individual should maintain equal and independent and refrain from harming one another. However, the main problem in this concept of freedom is that fact that an individual’s free will can be constrained by the actions of another.

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

A concept of freedom (or liberty) has been the foundation of the United States since its founding in 1776. After all, its Declaration of Independence states that every citizen deserves the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. However, “Liberty” doesn’t just mean a literal freedom from captivity, or the right to live independently from the rule of a monarch. The Constitution preserves multiple different types of Liberty, including the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and many more.

The idea of liberty, or freedom, varies between different theorists. One theorist, Isaiah Berlin, focused on the difference between two different ways of thinking about political liberty (Cherniss & Hardy, 2010). Berlin called these two different concepts negative and positive liberty. According to Berlin, negative freedom can be defined as ‘freedom from’, that is, freedom from constraint or interference of others. In contrast, positive freedom can be defined in two ways: ‘freedom to’, that is the ability to pursue and achieve willed goals; and also as autonomy or self-rule, as opposed to the dependence on others (Cherniss & Hardy, 2010). Keeping the idea of positive liberty at