This philosophical study will define Jean-Jacque Rousseau’s argument of social collectivism in the state regulation of property rights, which will countermand John Locke’s argument for individual private property rights. Rousseau determines the lawless state of nature as a rationale for civil society and governance, yet he presents the case for civil society and collectivism as the rationale for multitudinous property rights through the state. In contrast to this, Locke views the state of nature as being a premise for the state to grant private property rights to the individual. In this manner, Rousseau argues for the more important collective role of government to provide a more equal/collectivist legal framework for civil society to function without the massive inequalities espoused by Locke in terms of private individual ownership. These factors define the more stable and civic function of government that Rousseau proposes as a way to provide property rights to the citizenry in order to avoid unstable societal conditions. In essence, Rousseau provides a more collective and socially responsible argument in favor of the state …show more content…
In effect, history has shown that a small group of individuals have typically controlled large parcels of land through the state (often a monarchy), yet the majority of people remain landless or serve as slaves to ruling elites. Of course, Locke’s vision of private property is the realization of this form of radical individualism through the state, yet Rousseau counters this argument on the necessity of collectivism and the greater good of property rights as a the basis for a stable