Locke Vs Montesquieu Essay
Montesquieu and Locke share a similar opinion that sovereign power needed to be limited to a certain extent. They differed in how they approached the conversation and they differed in their conclusion of what government would be most beneficial to a nation.
Locke believed that the natural rights of the people limited the power of the sovereign. Locke went into detail about the impact nature and property rights have in guiding a society. Overall Locke discusses how equality is the central focus of a nation which is built on the natural appropriation of materials and property. Since the way to acquire property is through work, man is able to acquire his own wealth.
Where government is concerned Locke shows that a society would be most successful if the majority …show more content…
represented the whole. This shows his belief in having a representative government such as the English Parliament, for example. Locke explains that the dissolution of society and the dissolution of government are different entities. He shows that a government dissolves as a result of the dissolving of a society.
On the other hand, Montesquieu gives the example of Rome to show that the people became, “ Sensible of their own strength, and could no longer obey,” (Montesquieu1). Citizens in the military began to follow only their generals and this caused them to lack unity with Rome. As society began to deteriorate the deterioration of the government followed. Eventually, the people experienced a loss of liberty. Montesquieu states that free states are not very permanent. The people no longer loved Rome and as foreigners came into the nation the sense of ancient Roman culture began to change. Montesquieu states that a perfect calm represents the lack of liberty which was taking over Rome.
Montesquieu gives many definitions of modernism.
One description presented is the unwillingness, “To live in any other manner than under the protection of his own laws,” (Montesquieu5). He also states that “ Nothing affects mankind more than names,” (Montesquieu9). Names, a desire for power and an overall inclination to rule oneself explain Montesquieu’s opinion of modern politics.
Modern Politics contains deceptive tactics and manipulation. This can be seen through his discussion of Pompey for instance. The thing that helps with unity on a greater scale is commerce because it helps the individual nation which is guided by self-preservation although it does not necessarily unite the individuals in the said nation. Montesquieu believes that a form of a separation of powers would be the best form of government in order to keep each person in power under control seeing as people have a tendency to strive for more power.
Locke and Montesquieu differ in their approach in that Locke focus more on the individual and Montesquieu focusses more on the government and they both reach slightly different conclusions as to whether a representative form of government or a separation of powers would create a better
nation.
Locke believed that the natural rights of the people limited the power of the sovereign. Locke went into detail about the impact nature and property rights have in guiding a society. Overall Locke discusses how equality is the central focus of a nation which is built on the natural appropriation of materials and property. Since the way to acquire property is through work, man is able to acquire his own wealth.
Where government is concerned Locke shows that a society would be most successful if the majority …show more content…
represented the whole. This shows his belief in having a representative government such as the English Parliament, for example. Locke explains that the dissolution of society and the dissolution of government are different entities. He shows that a government dissolves as a result of the dissolving of a society.
On the other hand, Montesquieu gives the example of Rome to show that the people became, “ Sensible of their own strength, and could no longer obey,” (Montesquieu1). Citizens in the military began to follow only their generals and this caused them to lack unity with Rome. As society began to deteriorate the deterioration of the government followed. Eventually, the people experienced a loss of liberty. Montesquieu states that free states are not very permanent. The people no longer loved Rome and as foreigners came into the nation the sense of ancient Roman culture began to change. Montesquieu states that a perfect calm represents the lack of liberty which was taking over Rome.
Montesquieu gives many definitions of modernism.
One description presented is the unwillingness, “To live in any other manner than under the protection of his own laws,” (Montesquieu5). He also states that “ Nothing affects mankind more than names,” (Montesquieu9). Names, a desire for power and an overall inclination to rule oneself explain Montesquieu’s opinion of modern politics.
Modern Politics contains deceptive tactics and manipulation. This can be seen through his discussion of Pompey for instance. The thing that helps with unity on a greater scale is commerce because it helps the individual nation which is guided by self-preservation although it does not necessarily unite the individuals in the said nation. Montesquieu believes that a form of a separation of powers would be the best form of government in order to keep each person in power under control seeing as people have a tendency to strive for more power.
Locke and Montesquieu differ in their approach in that Locke focus more on the individual and Montesquieu focusses more on the government and they both reach slightly different conclusions as to whether a representative form of government or a separation of powers would create a better
nation.