Political Science: Locke and Publius - Essay Example

The works “The Second Treatise of Government”, by John Locke, and “The Federalist Papers”, by Publius, are two documents that how a government should control its population. Both of these works discuss how human nature affects the role that government plays in society because of the reason that it must exercise when making decisions. While “The Federalist Papers” is clearly a liberal work because it supports big government and places a great deal of emphasis on the individual by ensuring that individual rights are protected ahead of the good of the country, Locke states that the individual should give up certain rights in order to ensure that everything runs very smoothly in society. The main difference between Locke and Publius is their treatment of the individual in its interaction with the government. John Locke begins his argument with the belief that men and women do not even have full ownership over themselves, so it would be impossible for someone else to gain this ownership over them. Allowing oneself to become enslaved in a violation of the law of nature, since no person can own another person, since that person does not even own him or her self. These laws of nature were implemented in order to protect one’s property rights, including oneself and, therefore, slavery does not exist in society. Another reason for this is that a slave will constantly be trying to gain freedom, and something that is truly owned by another would not do this, but would rather be content with being owned by another human being and, therefore, the government is not permitted to have full control over its population. Wage slavery comes in the form of a social contract that every human is bound to in order to keep social order. Without this social contract, society would be too unpredictable and, therefore, unjust. This contract is necessary in order to protect the property rights of each and every human being. This system, however, gives much more power to the ruling class, by allowing for them to hold the majority of the power over peoples’ rights. This situation, as Locke would say, is the only way to protect the laws of nature, since the citizens will always want to break these laws for their own personal good. This means that under a social contract, the citizens were forced to give up certain rights and freedoms in order to be protected under the law. This is not a democratic process, however, as Locke supported the monarchy holding the power because they were the most qualified to lead society. While this sort of system is different than the slave/Greek relationship presented by Aristotle, it is still an unequal system because the balance of power is held by a small percentage of society. Due to the fact that Locke supported the monarchy, this system also incorporates that idea that we are born to fill certain roles in society, and never advance. Locke does not, however, discuss the idea of a large republic where representatives are able to sample the population in order to figure out what the best course of action is in order to ensure that the beliefs of the constituents are met. Locke’s idea of the state of nature was that a legislative power was needed in order to ensure property rights, since the state of nature was very unstable. In this state of nature, peace, quite and property are not protected so he saw it fit that men and women gave up all of their natural power in order to create a just society. Despite this, however, Locke believed that all people had the right to protect their own safety and, accordingly, the property that they inhabited from anyone who wished to take it away from them. What Locke’s philosophy states is that even though God gave the world to all of mankind, each human owns his or her self until that person gives up some of these rights to the state in order to create a more just society. Since any work that is done on a piece of land is a product of the self, that person has ownership over anything that comes as a result of this work that is done by the self. The development of money came about as a result of property ownership, as it was necessary for goods produced on a piece of property to be transferred to those who did not have access to these goods as well as for workers to work on the property, in order for there to be basic survival and for supply and demand considerations. This means that Locke believed that the government’s only contribution should be protecting the rights of the people, even though certain rights should be given up for the greater good. “The Federalist Papers” are a series of articles that argue for the ratification of the American Constitution. They were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the alias “Publius” and were published in New York City newspapers. The papers outline the proposed system of government under the United States Constitution by giving an interpretation of the contents of it. The purpose of writing these papers was to influence the voters so that the Constitution could be ratified and so their interpretation of the Constitution would be the accepted one. Paper number ten is one of the most important papers because it outlines the future of the United States as a republic by taking a position against faction. Firstly, the paper says that the elimination of liberty is not acceptable. It also states that having a standardized society, in both interest and opinion, will create a situation where faction is prominent because they are necessary for the economic interests of a free society. This means that for the United States to become a truly sovereign country, that minority factions should be prevented from taking power. This article also calls for the United States to become a large republic because in a small republic, common interests will likely become prevalent and, therefore, there will be very little dialogue directed at changing public opinion. This means that in a small republic, the majority will be able to enforce its will with relative ease, since everything is so concentrated. A republic, therefore, is different than a democracy because its government is delegated to certain representatives and, therefore, the governing of a republic can be spread over a large area. A large republic will elect a better government than a small one because the regional differences in a large republic will create a great deal of dialogue. Also, each representative will represent a greater number of people and, therefore, each representative represents a greater sample of the population. This means that there are more people to create diversity in opinion, which will prevent one opinion from being the only opinion considered. Since a republic can cover large areas and great numbers in population, it is a stronger form of government than any other type. This is an argument for each of the states in this region to united and become the United States. This will work better, according to this document, because no region will be subject to the majority and, therefore, everything will be done in a fair and democratic fashion. The writers wished for the United States to become large and diverse enough to prevent faction, but also with close enough ties between the member states as to keep unity alive. This argument relies on virtue because it aims to prevent factions from appearing within the government. This means that it assumes that those who represent their constituencies will not put their own interests above the great good of the people within those constituencies. One problem that these papers outlined was the lack of rights that were officially held by the people. While it did prevent the government from having absolute power, it did not provide specific rights for the people when dealing with the government and this scared the writers of these documents. The main fear was that the interpretation of the Constitution would be that the only rights that are held by the people are the ones that it takes away from the government and, therefore, the government could take advantage of the population by not giving it certain rights. Locke would disagree with the assessment of virtue because he believes that the ruling class should have more power than the rest of society. This means that he would accept it if the representatives that were elected by the people would look out for their own interests and make the decision for the constituency based on their own beliefs, rather than the beliefs of the members of the constituency. This is the main difference between Locke and Publius, as they have different beliefs about the power that the ruling class should have in society. While Locke believes that people should have to give up certain rights to the ruling class for the greater good of society, Publius believes that the ruling class should not have any additional power, but is only in place to put the beliefs of the people into action after first sampling the population effectively. The rights of the individual are the main difference between these two works, as Publius believes that the people should be fairly represented, while Locke believes that they should fall in line and do as the government wishes. Read More