Daniel McAvoy
PSC 101
04/17/2016
Paper 2
Locke and Mill: Marxlandia or Mussolini Island?
In the case that English, liberal philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill are stranded between two islands, one socialist island and another fascist island, and forced to flee to one, either option would pose its own distinct benefits and obstacles. Ultimately, though, Marxlandia would be a better, more fruitful choice for the philosophers to make than Mussolini Island. Locke, a 17th century, English philosopher, maintained that without consent, no authority could be had over the individual. He also argued the premise that man has an innate right to life, liberty and property. Locke argued for a commonwealth in order to ensure the “protection of its members’ ‘civil interests’” (pg 66). Similarly, Mill, a liberal 19th century English philosopher, had an obsession with the individual and promoted democracy as the solution to a just government. He believed “that absolute power, in the hands of an eminent individual, would ensure a virtuous and intelligent performance of all the …show more content…
Communism protects human rights while fascism acknowledges them selectively. Although Marx believed that private property was at the center of the majority of problems that humans in society were facing, he and Locke had many similarities on idea of property than Locke and Mussolini would ever have. Both Locke and Marx believe that human rights are essential to the growth and development of the individual but property serves as a different purpose for each. For Locke, the individual must own property in order to help them sustain a sense of worth and grow through that notion. He believes that individuals should own property in the same manner that one would own property in a capitalist society, in that property is good, private, and belongs to the individual and nobody
PSC 101
04/17/2016
Paper 2
Locke and Mill: Marxlandia or Mussolini Island?
In the case that English, liberal philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill are stranded between two islands, one socialist island and another fascist island, and forced to flee to one, either option would pose its own distinct benefits and obstacles. Ultimately, though, Marxlandia would be a better, more fruitful choice for the philosophers to make than Mussolini Island. Locke, a 17th century, English philosopher, maintained that without consent, no authority could be had over the individual. He also argued the premise that man has an innate right to life, liberty and property. Locke argued for a commonwealth in order to ensure the “protection of its members’ ‘civil interests’” (pg 66). Similarly, Mill, a liberal 19th century English philosopher, had an obsession with the individual and promoted democracy as the solution to a just government. He believed “that absolute power, in the hands of an eminent individual, would ensure a virtuous and intelligent performance of all the …show more content…
Communism protects human rights while fascism acknowledges them selectively. Although Marx believed that private property was at the center of the majority of problems that humans in society were facing, he and Locke had many similarities on idea of property than Locke and Mussolini would ever have. Both Locke and Marx believe that human rights are essential to the growth and development of the individual but property serves as a different purpose for each. For Locke, the individual must own property in order to help them sustain a sense of worth and grow through that notion. He believes that individuals should own property in the same manner that one would own property in a capitalist society, in that property is good, private, and belongs to the individual and nobody