Jefferson Vs Locke

Both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson believe that people have certain natural rights and that it is the government’s job to protect these rights. Their documents were both written for revolutions, although they were two very different revolutions. Ultimately, a revolution in Europe influenced Locke to write the Second Treatise on Government. The Second Treatise on Government was important because it influenced the way many later philosophers would view government. One philosopher influenced by Locke was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence used the same philosophy as Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, but it also held great significance in that it was the first time a group of colonies had successfully separated from a world power like Great Britain.

In the history of America, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, and Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, were two of the greatest leaders of our country. Although they both lead the country, that's where the similarities end as they had opposing views on everything. Jefferson was a republican while Hamilton was a federalist. Jefferson had been opposed to all of Hamilton's ideas, such as his financial plan, his interpretation of the powers of the government, his foreign policy, and his vision for the future of America. Jefferson was against Hamilton's views because his financial plan would ultimately destroy democracy in America, his interpretation of the powers of

war with these against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that the constitution should be read narrowly. Alexander Hamilton believed that the constitution should be read broadly. These views are very clear when it came to the creation of the national bank. Madison and Jefferson believed that it would be unconstitutional to create a national bank because there is nothing listed in the constitution allowing congress to do so. Alexander Hamilton's argument is that there is nothing listed in the constitution saying congress cannot create a national bank. This question would later be one of two big questions coming out of McCulloch vs Maryland. The Supreme court ruled that congress did have the ability to create a national bank as long as congress is in pursuit

The seventeenth century of repression, rebellion and civil war led John Locke to write his Two Treatises of Government, which have continued to provide tremendous outpouring of political and economic views that influence society now. In today’s world, the political and economic theory presented by Locke depends on the initial principle that life is both owning as well as maintaining property. One of the main components of government today is to protect individual rights so that every person may follow his own open-minded self-interests. Although, before Locke the government did not ration for the idea of property, the only example of property was the focus of dedicating your life to your ruler. These ideas progressed into Locke’s theories. Locke reasons that the earth was given to Adam to represent all mankind. God gave the earth to Adam for all man to benefit and gather from it. Locke writes that the principal end of forming a civil government is the protection of property because the state of nature is

On December 20, 1803, America as colonists knew it would forever be changed in an event that would be remembered in history for framing the way we acquire lands in America through our constitution. The Louisiana Purchase was the first real eye-opener to Americans on how our constitution should be interpreted. Thomas Jefferson, the president at the time, had to make an executive decision that would change lives greatly, whether the outcome good or bad. Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution, but in order to make this deal he was going to have to stretch his beliefs a substantial amount. The other people who believe that the constitution should be followed down to the last comma no matter the circumstances, did not see eye to eye with Jefferson’s decision. I am on Jefferson’s side of the debate and believe that his decision was for the greater good of the American people.

     It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…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 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”

In analyzing the works of Plato and John Locke I feel that Plato presents a more accurate idealism in how a society should be maintained. Plato puts ultimate power in those with the highest knowledge. I feel that this concept is necessary in order to have a successful regime, thus I support in my argument.

He accomplishes this by establishing that “every man has a property in his own person” which is to say that every man owns himself (Locke 19). However, Locke makes it clear that even though man owns himself, as a creation of God, he has no right to take his own life which further reconciles Locke’s philosophy with the precepts of Christianity. Additionally, when Locke states that “the labour of his body [man’s] and the work of his hands … are properly his,” he identifies labor as the distinguishing factor in the creation and accumulation of private property (Locke 19). Locke goes on to assert that “labour… added something… more than nature,” thus through labor man can transform common into private (Locke 19). Then Locke appeals once again to the Christian ideals of frugality and moderation by asserting that “nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” thus establishing “a bounds, set by reason” to limit the acquisition of private property and hinder greed (Locke

He argues that humans initially existed in a state of nature characterized by a lack of structure, self-dependency, a lack of structure, and mutual cooperation. Locke describes this pre-civilization society as being “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 8). Locke presents these values as forming the core of a perfect society which in turn directly influences our opinion of them. Typically, modern society either only partially observes or dismisses entirely Locke’s idea of a perfect society. This theory is most prominent in the aspect (rather, absence of) class structure in the state of nature compared to civilization.

John Locke’s concept of liberty is sustainable economically, politically, and environmentally. He also states certain restrictions towards people. For example, he puts a limitation of the amount of things that can be taken from nature. Nothing can go to waste; from food to land. Each person owns their own labor to be able to work on, but if the land is not being worked, that person loses their private right to work on the land. Locke defines labor as value/tool, these makes humans life more adventurous and worthy. Once the land is obtain

1. Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke on political power? In answering this question explain Locke’s argument against Hobbes’s understanding of “paternal” and despotical power.

Locke claims the state of nature is a state of pure freedom (Locke, 8). However, people enter society so they can preserve “their lives, liberty, and estates” which Locke summarizes are the property (Locke, 66). Locke establishes three elements needed for a civil society. First, there must be established common law that sets a standard of right and wrong (Locke, 66). Next, there must be impartial judges, “with authority to determine all differences according to the established law” (Locke, 66). Finally, there must be the “power to back and support the sentence when right and to give it due execution” (Locke, 66).

To begin with, Locke believes that at the state of nature, human beings are given the right of properties, and private appropriations can occur as long as they fulfill three main criteria. Such assumption allows Locke to discuss private properties without the interference of other parties, including civil governments. According to Locke, human beings and their private properties are protected by nature as God’s will to expect human beings to thrive and to develop, also driven by human beings’ natural rights of living and

If all human beings are to use the earth to their ‘best advantage' and the earth is the common property of all, someone somewhere will have conflicting interests with another human being over the possession of some thing. The only remedy is to sacrifice his/her equality by consent (It is not likely that one would surrender equality to another) OR to enter a ‘state of war.' The only protection against the state of war in John Locke's opinion is to enter into civil society governed by a common authority. By taking this measure, Locke insists humankind can better protect itself against war and preserve the right to enjoy what one possesses, ". . . because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property" [pg. 18].