Summary:
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes.
Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democracy that also co-exists with a ruling class.
Rousseau's plan gives the State almost no control over its people while Locke grants the State more of a decision making role. Rousseau believeed that the state should in fact have very little control over the people. Since the people control the sovereignty, the state essentially has no control other than the control that results from the general will of the people. This control is in fact established directly by the people, but also does set up rules as to how people must live their lives. Locke believeed that the point of the state is to provide peace, safety, and public good for the people with no othersecondary function. Therefore a king who indulges in riches and extravagant wealth would not be justified as as this doesn't benefit the state as a whole. The establishment of a legislative power, which is the only power that can make laws, limits the power of the king or other rulers. The legislative branch should be obedient to the community, and also their power "is limited to the to the public good of the society" (Locke 20). A major limitation of the power of the State is that "they must not raise the taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people"(Locke 24) which means that finally kings can not extract unfair amounts of taxes fro peasants, a situation that had let to revolts in the past. Locke also feltthat if a government no longer represents its people, the people have the right to rebel. Therefore, both Lock and Rousseau believe that the government should represent the people and their wishes.
Rousseau gives the people almost complete control while Locke limits the control of the people to a somewhat greater degree. Rousseau states that "anyone who refuses to obey the general will shall be forced to do so by the whole body" (Rousseau 42). This means that people who do not agree with the general will, for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
This is the complete article, containing 749 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).
