Locke and Rousseau contract greatly regarding inequality. Their theories present different origins of inequality, different notions of whether people agree to it, and different ways in which it should be regulated by political society. According to Locke, there is no limitation on the inequality that may exist within a government.
To question his theory, let us assume the following conditions:
1. The legislature legislates according to the best interest of its citizens.
2. The government protects each individual’s right to property.
3. A large inequality develops over time where a small portion of society controls more than 99% of the wealth and the rest controls less than 1% of the wealth.
4. It is in the interest of the poor to redistribute wealth but not in …show more content…
First, why should there be relative equality prior to the founding of a society? Suppose there is a society in which there are two classes of people: a smaller, wealthy class, and a larger, poorer class. This contradicts Rousseau’s notion of strict inequality. However, a functioning government that rules according to the General Will may still arise.
Let us assume the following conditions:
1. Citizens all agree to establish a government together according to the General Will.
2. Citizens all vote according to what they think is in the best interest of all.
3. The General Will shall be understood through a majority vote.
4. This nation satisfies all of Rousseau’s other preconditions
With the preceding conditions, if it is in the General Will of the people that the nation should equally redistribute wealth, thereby eliminating class differences, then, when the citizens vote, the result, and therefore the General Will, would eliminate such inequality. Therefore, the precondition that inequality must be limited would be unnecessary if all other conditions were met, and equality were part of the General
To question his theory, let us assume the following conditions:
1. The legislature legislates according to the best interest of its citizens.
2. The government protects each individual’s right to property.
3. A large inequality develops over time where a small portion of society controls more than 99% of the wealth and the rest controls less than 1% of the wealth.
4. It is in the interest of the poor to redistribute wealth but not in …show more content…
First, why should there be relative equality prior to the founding of a society? Suppose there is a society in which there are two classes of people: a smaller, wealthy class, and a larger, poorer class. This contradicts Rousseau’s notion of strict inequality. However, a functioning government that rules according to the General Will may still arise.
Let us assume the following conditions:
1. Citizens all agree to establish a government together according to the General Will.
2. Citizens all vote according to what they think is in the best interest of all.
3. The General Will shall be understood through a majority vote.
4. This nation satisfies all of Rousseau’s other preconditions
With the preceding conditions, if it is in the General Will of the people that the nation should equally redistribute wealth, thereby eliminating class differences, then, when the citizens vote, the result, and therefore the General Will, would eliminate such inequality. Therefore, the precondition that inequality must be limited would be unnecessary if all other conditions were met, and equality were part of the General