Comparing John Locke And Aristotle's Ideal Government

Today, we have freedom in many forms, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. The Magna Carta and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government laid the foundation for the freedom we enjoy today. The Magna Carta accomplished the liberty Englishmen currently enjoy by raising the status quo of peasants to commoner. This means those born to royalty will begin to treat peasants (underpeers) as people, for instance the Magna Carta states “(9) Neither we [feudal barons] nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt.” Similarly to the U.S., which has three branches of government to limit power, executive, legislative and judicial; the

What would the American government be like today if it was not for the mind and political theory of John Locke? Some historians and philosophers believe that without John Locke our government would only be a shadow of what it is today. Arguably, one of his most important political and philosophical works was his Two Treatises of Government. There he argues that the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. John Locke, in many eyes, can be viewed as one of the father’s of Democracy. He embraced many of ideas in his theories on the state of nature and the rise of political society today. In Locke’s political society,

I think that both Locke and Jefferson would both have wanted a democratic government. Because they wanted people to have power to change the government or just have a impact in the government. In a democratic government the people can make a difference by voting, protesting, being active in the political seen or even just being informed about what's going on in the government. This sounds like what they would want people being able to change the government. In my opinion they would both want a democratic government for people so they could have an significance in their

Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.

In the text “Second Treatise of Government” by John Locke various themes were presented such as the theme of Dissolution of Government and the Dissolution of the Society. If the society or government is corrupt then it won’t work in either way according to my opinion. In order to have a stable government, a stable society it is necessary to have which provides rules and regulations. Imagine a society without rules & regulations. How chaotic it must be without order and discipline. If both the government and the society work with each other it creates some form of order. In most countries today people do not have a voice in government. The feature I thought about in this particular chapter is about politics in general. I thought about

Locke and Aristotle differ when it comes to their views on property. Locke tends to have more of a focus on individualism and property ownership. He claims it is valid for the land to be divided disproportionately based on how hard each individual wants to labor. On the other hand, Aristotle concentrated on the community as a whole rather than the individual. Therefore, Aristotle believes that land is given proportionality to the entire community. Additionally, the two philosophers disagree when it comes to building up the value of land. For Locke, the amount of labor fulfilled drastically increases the value of land by a great margin. Locke maintains that a piece of property’s worth is generated through labor, meaning, the more work one does

The differences between Locke and Jefferson is about what men use the government for and what men are and have. Locke believes that “the reason men enter into society is to protect their property” (Locke 1). Then Locke states that men chose a government to guard that property.

Locke’s opinion not only implies that there is a right to revolt, but also that the people have the right to establish a new legislature. The sovereign must act in the public’s best interest to maintain this active permission from the people, not his own.

Government and more importantly democracy in government has always been an important aspect of any society. Theories created about government seeks to shed light and provide insight to the masses so that they will be more capable of understanding what their government is all about, the policies that stand for and how accessible they are to the citizens of the country. The theorists being examined in this study are John Locke and J.S. Mills. These 2 theorists support democracy, and the rights of people to have a say in their government. They have shared their views on how a democratic government should operate and have influenced many other theorists and entire governments with their views governments as knows as the United

While some differences between Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community are obvious, the similarities are noticeable. According to Aristotle, the nature and purpose of a political community is for the greater or highest good of all its citizens, which according to him, is virtue and happiness. The purpose of the community is to make it possible for the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness. “It is constituted out of numerous households for the sake of satisfying the needs of its citizens other the everyday ones” (Aristotle, Politics 1252b -15). For example, if someone in the community wants their roof to be fixed, they can get it done by a carpenter from the community. Likewise, if the carpenter wants a shirt to be mended, he can get it done by a tailor from the community.

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.

In John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, he starts off by asserting that God gave the world to the people of the Earth, and that everything, or property, can be claimed by people in order to sustain life and their well-being. Since everything belongs to the people, he brings up the idea of individual property. Locke’s theory of first rights to private property builds on philosophical assumptions derived from 17th-century English Protestantism because of his ideas of property of person and the idea of serving God’s will.

In the society illustrated by John Locke, the human nature is characterized as free and independent; however, the problem with society is that it has too many small inconveniences, which could be as trivial as a tree blocking the sidewalk. To solve these problems, a legitimate government, characterized by explicit consent, checks on institutions and the right to revolt by the people, is needed. The utmost legitimate government, in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is based on John Locke’s social contract in Second Treatise of Government because each aspect of a legitimate government protects the citizen’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Through each aspect, the people can actively participate in government to prevent the sovereign from taking advantage of their powers to further their own goals.

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).

The proclaimed “Father of Liberalism,” John Locke, is an essential figure to study. If not for his sheer amount of philosophical knowledge, then for the profound impact that he has had on the structure of America’s government. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke rejects the status quo and opts for a key principle in government that monarchies simply do not have: a social contract. However, before a social contract is created, people must undergo the state of nature; a place of “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Chapter 2, Section 4). John Locke skillfully uses the state of nature as a starting point to explain how a reasonable government and civil society are created. The state of nature is the essential beginning that any society must take at first. From this, we see the emergence of natural freedoms; our rights to life, liberty, and property; and how a government may limit those for our own benefit.