Milton Friedman 's The Second Treatise Of Civil Government

Commonly known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke has had a lasting influence in politics. Locke wrote many political documents, including North Carolina’s first constitution and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but one of his most famous documents is the Second Treatise of Government. The Second Treatise, which was written during a political crisis in Europe, was a voluntary acceptance of order where the government respects the people and the people respect the government. This document, along with Locke’s many other documents and ideas, led to a political advancement throughout

While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against

Doernberg, Donald L. "'We The People': John Locke, Collective Constitutional Rights, And Standing To Challenge Government Action." California Law Review 73.1 (1985): 52. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

To understand their views on revolt, and when it is justified, one must first review the responsibilities each believes the government to have. To Locke, the government works to preserve innate rights, that is, rights

Locke believed that man should not let any boundaries be set forth upon them against their recreation of their rights, however, within the limitations of the government and the safety of the people. Using Locke’s ideas the authors of the Declaration of Independence imitates his belief with “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” . This statement is a powerful one to have in such a monumental document that the entire governmental system is based upon as it not only gives the people their individual rights, popular sovereignty, but also asserts their final

Locke and Jefferson have different ways of evaluating government than the Ayn Rand Institute. Both philosophers believe certain rights are inalienable to all of men, but when government starts to renege on its original intent, people as a whole may come together and overthrow the government. For Locke government starts with a civil association, or a group of like-minded people who want to protect themselves from the dangers that could potentially arise in the state of nature. Each individual that enters into civil society consents and the basis of authority is the determination of the people as a whole, better known as popular sovereignty. Back in Locke’s time it was commonly held that popular sovereignty would lead to chaos and frequent rebellion. In spite of this, Locke argues that popular sovereignty is the best guarantee against unwarranted rebellion since the population would collectively determine the appropriate remedy. Locke reasons that if the decision to revolt were left up to the individual that it would “unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.” To support collectivism, Locke says as long as the society lasts the power each individual relinquished upon entering does not revert back to the individual. Therefore, even though the government has collapsed the “commonwealth [is] still preserved” and the notion of popular sovereignty remains intact. Another strong piece to add to this counterargument would be to discuss Locke’s ideas on the individual right to punish. Since there is no common authority in the state of nature, Locke holds that individuals have the right to punish those who threaten their self-preservation and individual freedom. However prior to entering a civil association, individuals forfeit their right to punish and confer it upon the government. Therefore, the use of individual rights and

John Locke’s views on rebellion and civil disobedience puts emphasis on the “state of nature” of man. He determines that man is naturally in this state of nature, meaning man has the power to resolve his issues himself. The only way for a man to execute his personal justice is for his personal property to be damaged by another man. Retaliating only to the extent of the crime committed. When brought together, these men formed a community and the only way for them to function was to implement restrictions on this state of nature in exchange for the protection by the Executive and peace provided by the Legislative. If any of these rules were to be broken it would be punished by the executive and not the person the crime was committed against. Locke stated that if the legislature was to overturned due to a portion of the community rebeling, then a new legislature implicated. This exposes the people to the danger of a naturally state of mind but in a large body. The rest of the people have no other choice but to protect their property themselves, creating a civil war.

John Adams once said, “Fear is the foundation of most governments.” Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Karl Marx all grew up in a time of war and witnessed the same events that caused them to create their idea of government. Hobbes learned that people are naturally wicked, Locke learned that people all had natural rights. Karl Marx thought that the social order did not matter. All of them concluded that their governmental plan was the most reliable form of governing. They all had great ideas for government, but John Locke’s ideas would best fit today’s societies, and would best fit in with Adam’s Smith’s ideas.

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.

Milton Friedman’s ideas where thought to be radical, but he was the most authoritative figure in the economics field in the 20th century, (Placeholder2) and was known most for his thoughts on free enterprise, classical liberalism and limited government. (Placeholder3) His views shaped modern capitalism. (Placeholder2) He was against government intervention and favored free markets (Placeholder6).

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).

John Locke and William Godwin are both political philosophers who strove to create an ideal society through the rejection of the Divine Right. Both philosophers focus on ideas of Man’s character, freedom and equality as axioms for their ideal governments, yet resulted in polar forms of governance. This essay seeks to refute both Godwin and Locke’s origins, purposes and extents of government. With Godwin’s idealistic perception of mankind and his concept of governance as abstract and utopian and lacking in concrete details, and Locke’s vague definitions of the boundaries of the social contract and the true purpose of the government, specifically in relation to the idea of remedying the state of nature, they ultimately compromise the integrity

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.

All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs. They each share some views about the effects of tyranny but they have different views on the preventions and the circumstances that give rise to tyranny. In the end, Locke has the most effective ideas as opposed to Plato and Hobbes. Although, they are all equally great minds, based on the democracy that Americans hold true, Locke’s analysis can be the only logical means of proposed prevention.

As a result of looking through Thomas Hobbes’ view on monarchy and John Locke’s view on democracy, both perspectives provide a vast amount of information of an ideal government. In Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, chapter 11 is devoted to legislative power, which Locke identifies as the most important part of the government. Locke provides rules for this legislative power. The first is the preservation of society. No one can challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own. This power is invested in the body of the majority. In this chapter, he brings up a constant