In Origin of Inequality, Rousseau describes the evolution into society almost like a trickster (the rich) fooling his mark (the poor). In time, individuals would amass land and cattle at the sake of another, leading to “dominion and slavery, or violence and rapine” (Rousseau 1755, 29). This series of conflicts prompted the rich into devising a plan to “employ in his favour the forces of those who attacked him” and to “give them other institutions as favourable to himself as the law of nature was unfavourable” (Rousseau 1755, 30). These institutions which the rich persuaded the poor into entering came the society that brought them out of the State of Nature. The impetus for moving from the prior state to the society was one of greed on part
…show more content…
The first of five rules is that it cannot have “arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people” since in the State of Nature, man did not have this power and cannot transfer power he does not have (Locke 2005, 43). The second is that it “cannot give itself a power to rule by sudden, arbitrary decrees” (Locke 2005, 44). It also cannot take property away without a just cause (3rd), nor can it transfer its power to another party (4th). The fifth rule, found later, is that it is best if the legislator(s) had short terms, so not to breed corruption and “separation” from the nation. The executive, though, should be active at all times to enforce the laws and that the executive and legislature be separate. This power “has the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions with individuals and communities outside the commonwealth” (Locke 2005, 47). This power is separate from the executive. The primary limitation set to this group is that it have an overseer.
Given these rules, it would be my best guess that Locke’s preferred style of government would be something similar to England’s old system: a monarchy with a parliament. The Monarchy would have a life-long term and Parliament would have shorter terms (as to comply with Locke’s fifth rule).
Rousseau uses the same three types of government, but does not think one is the “best” of all, but some are suited to particular situations. He claims “the number of supreme magistrates ought to be in inverse ratio to the size of the population” (Rousseau 2010, 33). If smaller, a democracy would work. If middle-tier size, an aristocracy, and, if very large, a
The first of five rules is that it cannot have “arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people” since in the State of Nature, man did not have this power and cannot transfer power he does not have (Locke 2005, 43). The second is that it “cannot give itself a power to rule by sudden, arbitrary decrees” (Locke 2005, 44). It also cannot take property away without a just cause (3rd), nor can it transfer its power to another party (4th). The fifth rule, found later, is that it is best if the legislator(s) had short terms, so not to breed corruption and “separation” from the nation. The executive, though, should be active at all times to enforce the laws and that the executive and legislature be separate. This power “has the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions with individuals and communities outside the commonwealth” (Locke 2005, 47). This power is separate from the executive. The primary limitation set to this group is that it have an overseer.
Given these rules, it would be my best guess that Locke’s preferred style of government would be something similar to England’s old system: a monarchy with a parliament. The Monarchy would have a life-long term and Parliament would have shorter terms (as to comply with Locke’s fifth rule).
Rousseau uses the same three types of government, but does not think one is the “best” of all, but some are suited to particular situations. He claims “the number of supreme magistrates ought to be in inverse ratio to the size of the population” (Rousseau 2010, 33). If smaller, a democracy would work. If middle-tier size, an aristocracy, and, if very large, a