FREE ESSAY ON LOCKE AND ROUSSEAU - COMPARE/CONTRAST

LOCKE AND ROUSSEAU - COMPARE/CONTRAST

Although their ideologies sometimes clashed, and they came from two distinctly different
epochs in the course of political development, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's
fundamental arguments address several similar points. These five main themes which
significantly overlap and thus cannot be addressed separately, are the state of nature,
the basis for the development of government, the primary intent of government, the state
of war, and the ultimate effect of the state on the individual and vice versa. Despite
these contradictions in belief, both men proved to be greatly influential in the course
of the United States' democratic development.
In both Locke's and Rousseau's state of nature, the only agreement they have is that men
are born free and equal, with no higher authority with the exception of divine power.
Locke adamantly believed that in nature, anarchy and a strong sense of insecurity among
the people was prevalent. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that people are unable to
live life to it's fullest in the chaotic state of nature, and no rights are inherent. For
Locke, nature was an ideal, a utopia, of sorts, the ultimate goal, while for Rousseau, it
was an unnatural and tumultuous ordeal that could neither prevail in theory or practice.
If the aforementioned ultimate goal were ever achieved, though, it would not last because
it would degenerate into a state of war. 
Locke and Rousseau's foremost point of agreement is that the people must demonstrate
consent in order for a successful government to begin to evolve. Locke maintained that
this permission was generally tacit, implied solely by remaining a member of the civil
society, or living under a government's rules. Ultimately, the first formation of
government is by the consent of all. Rousseau states that consent must be explicit to
form a community at first, also presuming that since the lives of people are unable to
live their lives to the fullest potential in nature, that forming a community and
government is the only logical means by which to form a fulfilling and meaningful life
for all.
Perhaps the issue over which Rousseau and Locke most fervently disagree is the role of
government. Both philosophers establish that government is the ultimate way to ensure
justice, morality, liberty, and protect the rights of the citizens, but that is where the
similarities in the men's tenets end. 
Locke took a stance similar to that of modern-day republicans and libertarians. He
believed the role of government is to create a perfect equilibrium between protecting the
individual's natural rights and as well as maintaining security and protecting the
individual's property.
Rousseau, on the other hand, adhered to a greater reverence for the establishment of
society, and felt that individual rights are subservient to the rights of society as a
whole. In a state of nature, he claimed, citizens' rights are nonexistent, for there is
no structure to foster them, and moreover, rights are derived from society. They do not
occur naturally. He also believed that society must come together to find a general will,
or the closest facsimile thereof, for no group of people have or will ever be able to
reach a consensus as to what is best for all. Rousseau's general will is really very
idealistic, as it is not the sum of individual wills, but rather one for the overall
public good. In short, he believed that one must sacrifice natural freedom for civil
freedom.
Rousseau also held a negative view of human nature, claiming that that historically
executives have cared very little about the best interest of their people. He did not
believe, though, that an executive is sovereign, but that right lies in the people.
Subsequently, Rousseau maintained that every government is subject to change that will
inevitably occur when the will of the people changes, or when an executive doesn't follow
the general will. 
Rousseau's aforementioned theory is very similar to the government the United States has
today. Oftentimes individual freedoms are conceded for the good of society as a whole.
Although each individual in the U.S. today may not agree to agree with the decisions made
by our leaders, we are bound to the rules that the sovereign, the people, have created. 
Locke and Rousseau extensively contradicted each other on the concept of the nature of
war, also. Rousseau pragmatically claimed that a state of war can only occur between two
or more nations, never among individuals. Locke dissented, asserting that the state of
war is simply a revolution against an invasion on sovereignty, be it individual or
governmental.
Although the ideas of both Locke and Rousseau elusively present themselves in U.S.
government today, the concepts stemming from Rousseau's severe distrust of government
manifest themselves strongly in American political culture. As a result of his theories
concerning the executive's natural tendency to abuse power, elected officials are held
much more accountable for their actions, and they are heavily scrutinized to ensure they
are maintaining the public good.
Several of John Locke's ideas also appear predominantly in American politics today. In
The Second Treatise, Locke makes allusion to a need for some protection of victims'
rights, a topic that has been heatedly debated in the modern American political system
for some time. Locke also comes out as a strong proponent of capital punishment, another
issue that has been timelessly controversial in our society. He also placed a very strong
emphasis on limited government, which is a fundamental component of the ideologies of
both the modern republican and libertarian parties.
Despite the fact that Locke and Rousseau's ideas clearly exemplify both sides of the
modern political spectrum (Locke representing the right, and Rousseau the left), a
balance between Locke's desire for protection of the individual liberties and Rousseau's
need for a structured society had managed to balance itself out quite well.