Pursuit Of Property By Thomas Jefferson Analysis

Improved Essays
1. The term “unalienable right” refers to rights that people are born with that cannot be given or taken away. Natural human rights. I think that Jefferson found it important to assert this because the colonists felt that the British government was trying to take away their unalienable rights. After he asserts that these are rights that everyone has, he uses the rest of the paragraph to explain how these rights should be protected by government. Furthermore, he explains that any government that tries to take away these rights needs to be altered or abolished by the people. He is using these rights as a basis for why the colonists have a right to change their government.
2. The phrase “pursuit of property” is narrow. It really only applies to the rich people who can gain property and therefore the right to vote. However, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is broad and ambiguous. People can interpret it in any way they choose. For rich people it could mean wealth and/or property. For poor people it could mean finding a slightly better job, learning a trade, or earning enough to buy a better
…show more content…
According to the Declaration, yes, the people had a right to abolish or change their government. The Declarations creates a soiled argument by first stating that people have certain rights, including life, liberty, and happiness. Next, the government is created to secure these rights for the people. It is all about the people. All of the power that the government has is from the people. The government is created by the people them to protect the people. If it fails is this endeavor, it is the rights of the people change it, because the government is for them. The colonist believed that they had suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations” and that it was time for them to exercise their power to change their government. According to them, when a government is no longer upholding the rights of the people, the people had the right to alter or abolish

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Classical liberalist such as John Stuart Mill explained that the government should attempt to help the welfare of its people. Mill saw the problem with government and realized the change he wanted to see. Mill explain that because government is now responsible for people, the majority of society could use government to deny liberty to the minority or those who opposing views. This is a beneficial ideology to society because it will promote welfare to help people overcome obstacles. It is human nature to naturally be evil and we must have government to maintain and regulate society, in order to prevent citizens from trumping others rights.…

    • 1738 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When people do this, they are essentially giving up their freedom and liberty, surrendering all control to the monarch. This would give the government the ability to do whatever they felt was necessary. Hobbes sees the government as a way of restraining the naturally selfish natures people possess so that they can live and work together in society. This is quite the opposite view of Locke. Locke promotes more of an optimistic viewpoint arguing that the best form of government is a democracy.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    As Locke’s idea of over throwing of the government is that it needs to be replaced with the one that will meet the needs of the people example by electing a particular party that will represent them and treat them equal regardless of the capacity and potentiality, “men give up their natural power to the society which enters into and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fits with this trust that they shall be governed by declare laws” (Locke, §136). If not then their peace, properties and liberty will be at…

    • 1685 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    These rights belong to people “by nature” as it is stated in his book. According to Locke, the people in a country are the main source of power which means the government makes decisions on their behalf, therefore, if the government does not protect the people's natural rights then we, the people, have the right to overthrow it. John Locke quoted, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” He believed that the people have the right to have their freedom and he helped set the foundation for this when our country wrote The Decleration of Independance. Nevertheless, John Locke had a huge impact on our world today which shapes our country for who we…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    When a person is part of a government then that person must give to the government some of their rights and property in exchange for guaranteed protection, but what is the point of that if the thing that the people need protection from is their own government. Also if a person gives this stuff to a government and insufficient protection is given why would anyone want to be a part of that kind of treatment. If that is the case, then the government does not have the right to rule over those people anymore and should be expelled. “He demanded ‘eternal separation’ from the British Crown and the British people, branding them as enemies from the beginning of…

    • 1346 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence and the DRMC had different ways of getting their point across to the readers of their documents. The DRMC listed solutions to current issues, as well as the basic rights of man, while the Declaration of Independence listed all of the appalling things the King did to Americans. The Declaration of Independence also explained why the people of America wanted to abolish all ties with Great Britain. With all of that said, I feel like it is important for people to know that fighting for what you believe in is something that only you can do. You need to have it in yourself to make a difference and let your voice be heard.…

    • 1905 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    POT3302 POT 3303 Political Ideologies John Locke’s vision of individual rights, rights of rebellion The scholar John Locke opines that a government bears the mandate to serves its people by protecting their life, liberty and their property. In his view, governments should not endorse the tyrannical rule of law; instead, the dispersion of authority should include excising the rule of law that serves all people (Aaron, 2011). Thus, he supports the decision to protest or rebel against any form of government that violates individual rights. In his view, the protests or rebels are justly before any legal presentation. Locke vouches for thinkers of liberty with individual example cases like Thomas Jefferson and Algernon Sidney.…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Vigilantism is only proper in the state of nature, but some aspects of it appear when he discusses the dissolution of the government. When the government fails, people have the moral authority to create a new government and a new legislation. Locke answers the question of who shall judge, when the ruler becomes tyrannical, by stating, “the people shall be the judge” (123, §241-42). The people…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without their philosophical ideas America’s government would be completely different and our rights would not be the same as it is today. The objective of creating a constitution with a Bill of Rights was to try to avoid the abuse of power, as well as a controlling government- and especially away from a tyrannical one. Our founding fathers wanted the protection of the citizens to last so that they may keep their liberty and their natural rights to equality and property. Each and one of these philosophers had a great influence on the esteemed and distinguished United States…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The elimination of states would abolish such a relationship between citizens and all levels of government. Included within a states ability to connect citizens to level of government perceived as distant, they also protect their citizens from an overpowering federal government. In Enduring Features of Federalism, Derthick suggests that the removal of states would dissolve the level of government most responsible for initiating contact with federal institutions through “talking back.” She writes, “This appeal to the states to talk back is not a call to defiance, but a call to engage federal officials in a policy dialogue…” However, the function of states as protectors of citizens rights through talking back has continually faced challenges. Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions have reshaped the extent to which states may talk back on certain issues. In cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges, federal law required all states to acknowledge same-sex marriage.…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays