John Locke, Adam Smith, And Edmund Burke

Contemporary economics are best explained by comparing two foundational thinkers that have contributed to the better understanding of liberalism, one being its proponent Adam Smith and the other being its most significant critic, Karl Marx. Both thinkers are profoundly important in locating and investigating the roots of neoliberalism as well as exploring alternatives ways to challenge neoliberal economics in the face of its post-cold war expansion as the inevitable and only alternative to redistribution and economic justice. This essay traces the emerging ideas of classical liberalism as articulated by Smith and their subsequent deployment in the debates that produced neoliberalism. In this context, Marx and Marxism are utilized to expose and deconstruct the shortcomings of both liberalism and neoliberalism and their limits in providing solutions to the structural symptoms of liberal and neoliberal capitalism.

John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.

In the 17 and 18 the philosophers hoped they could discover new ways to understand and improve society.The four philosophers were John Locke,Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Mary Wollstonecraft each one of them were writing about different areas of human society, including government,religion,economy, and the social role of women.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx both came from very different worlds, however they saw the world in similar ways. Both had thoughts derived from different views. Smith had a very capitalistic view on things, while Marx was socialist in many ways. They expressed their thoughts in ways that were surprisingly similar while other ideas were dissimilar. Ultimately socialism and capitalism can go hand in hand. One main idea that both works addressed was the productivity of work and the ability to accumulate property, stock and capital. They both wanted a wealthy nation but Marx believed that redistribution of wealth was the way to go. Smith believed in a free economic system that gave capitalists rights to accumulate their wealth.

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The enlightenment era arose in the modern cultural ideology of the 18th century, as ideas among philosophers had a widespread effect among the society. The age of enlightenment, in western society, projected the rejection of traditional Christianity, western philosophy, intellectual advances, scientific, and cultural life, government legitimacy and authority. Upon the enlightenment period multiple philosophers emerged, the individuals arose to leading figures using reason to understand all aspects of human life. The motivations for the enlightenment came primarily from the Englishmen, John Locke. John Locke was a philosophical influence in both political theory and theoretical philosophy, which was embraced among the era of 1789-1914 and

Influential figures of the late 18th century such as John Locke and Thomas Paine cemented Enlightenment ideas that would ultimately shape the founding of the United States of America. The enlightenment ideas were crafted around motifs such as liberation, challenges to politics, social mobility, and oppression. John Locke and Thomas Paine expressed their concerns around those ideas towards how much power the government should have, as well as calling for a reorganization of a new republic. These concerns were considered revolutionary at the time and therefore began to influence the building blocks of America and it’s identity. The rise of Enlightenment ideas in the late 18th century paved the path for the founding of the United States by laying the foundation for liberated thinking, the concept of consent in government, and a national identity based on freedom for man.

John Locke was a Western philosopher who first published writings regarding natural rights; he laid these rights out to be life, liberty and property. Locke was one of the many 17th century Enlightenment thinkers who influenced people all over Europe and America. Such American Patriots, who were influenced by Locke, used his ideas to stake their claim of independence from Britain. Thomas Jefferson, a Patriot and founding father of America, applied Locke’s ideas of natural rights in his writing of the American Declaration of Independence and his argument against British control of the colonies. One oppressed group in America, the blacks, petitioned Jefferson to use his new position of power in the American government to promote equality in society. Benjamin Banneker, an educated free black living in Maryland, wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter in response to Jefferson’s Notes On The State of Virginia in which Jefferson states his beliefs concerning slavery and race inequality. By elevating Jefferson’s status, manipulating Jefferson’s own arguments and highlighting his own accomplishments, Banneker’s letter helps refute Jefferson’s claims of black inferiority and justification of slavery.

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

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

18th century French philosophes debated and studied many topics. Some of the main ideas or topics studied by these well educated people were government, religion, economy, and gender roles. Famous philosophes such as John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith and Mary Wollstonecraft, discussed different ideals and roles the government should play in the lives of the common people. Each philosophe had a different main idea and opinion on society. While they all had different focuses, they all shared a similar belief, that individual freedom was a key element in a stable and peaceful society.

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

There is perhaps not a more famous ongoing dialectic argument in the field of political economy than the one between Adam Smith and Karl Marx in regards to capitalism. The two thinkers, although coming to radically different conclusions about the outcomes of the capitalist system for all parties involved, agree on a surprising number of ideas such as labor being the source of commodities’ value, as well as the fact that the division of labor increases productivity. However, their different conceptions of what determines the price of a commodity, the driving force behind and the effects of the division of labor, and the purpose of the capitalist system have widespread implications that cause their holistic arguments to diverge considerably.