I never took this class, for I looked on it with disdain--choosing instead to take real history classes and econ classes.
My wife had a hard time with the first essay, so I helped explain John Locke's theory to her and formulate her ideas into a coherent essay. She got an A, so I must have done a good job. In her essay she compares America's protection of Locke's "inalienable rights" to Vietnam's version:
The principle of “social contract” is illustrated effectively by traffic laws and patterns in the United States and Vietnam. In America, the government, by consent of the people, has set lanes, speed limits, and traffic police to punish offenders. In this manner, the people have their right to life (not being killed in an accident), liberty (a driver may drive in whichever lane he or she chooses, and at what speed), and owning and improving property (the driver owns his or her car, plus the taxes pay for road upkeep). In this manner, by outwardly sacrificing freedom of movement or speed, traffic moves in an orderly way, the basic rights of people are promoted, and people get to their respective destinations quickly and safely.
Contrast this with Vietnam. Traffic in Vietnam shows the problems of both a government that restricts personal freedoms, and one that does not support personal liberties enough. Because Communism plays the role of caregiver, people lose responsibility for their actions (owning and improving property). They become disconnected from the effects and therefore have no incentive to act in a manner that does not benefit them in the short term. Hence, drivers in Vietnam routinely cut others off, have hit-and-runs, or transport goods in vehicles that are not fit to drive—too polluting or destroy the roads.
You can read the whole essay on John Locke's theory and how it influenced the founding fathers by clicking the read/expand link below (warning, in MS Word it is 3 single-spaced pages).
*****Essay 1 by My Wife (quotes may be used with proper annotation. This work may not be reproduced in full without the expressed written consent of the author. A reminder, everything on this blog is under copyright)*****
The American experience is a unique phenomenon in the history of the world. Not since man first spread out over the globe and settled ancient civilizations was there a situation amicable to the development of a free society. One of the major factors in shaping such an environment was John Locke. His essays, like the Second Treatise, helped steer intellectual debate and human thought to build a situation that incubated individual liberties and changed the citizen-government relationship. His Second Treatise focused on five points that apply directly to the American experience: humanity’s natural state, the social contract, the purpose of government, derivation of governmental power, and reciprocity for governmental dereliction of duties.
The five points explained by John Locke in his treatise stem ultimately from his view of human nature. Locke worked as personal secretary to the Earl of Shaftsbury, which gave him experience seeing how public policy influences the nation. However, he also saw that money drove these people to work in government. The mercantilist era saw huge monopolies develop in order to corner markets like sugar, slaves, and tea. These mega-companies allowed goods to be shipped in bulk—thereby achieving an economy of scale, reducing costs and increasing profits.
From his experience, Locke believed that man is inherently driven by self-interest. The driving force for mercantilism was money, not philanthropies nor God. One example was slavery. English mercantilists organized their companies in order to make more money selling slaves, not because they felt any desire to help Africans. The paternalistic view of slavery in the United States arose during the late 1700s and early 1800s to help the South gain a moral upper hand over the North’s economic arguments against the institution.
Therefore, two things become evident. First, if there is no higher power—no relevant higher power dictating man’s actions—then man, himself, is supreme. Second, mercantilism shows that this paramount man is driven by, and treasures most, his personal ability to follow his interests. If he wants to own slaves, he can work towards that. In summary, individual liberty is the inborn gift of a supreme person to achieve his or her life goals.
Locke built on this assumption in his Second Treatise by listing five points between this paramount man and government. He describes the original state of man as the hypothetical “state of nature.” He speculates that a person based on his view of human nature, would live peacefully in a world where “all had rights to live their lives, to enjoy their liberty, and to own and improve their property” (Fox, 43). These three tenants exist for all, unable to be taken away, given to man by Nature herself. However, Locke’s view is profoundly idealistic. A man with perfect freedom could walk around, eat apples off of any tree he liked, play in any stream he chose, and slept in any dale he found. But what happens when another person crosses his path, wants to eat the same apple, or bathe in the same stream? Two people cannot eat one apple.
This problem is solved by the “social contract.” Humanity, Locke postulates, has two conflicting desires: harmony and freedom. In order to live in harmony, individual freedoms must be conquered. Since only one person can eat the apple, others must be convinced to choose other apples, or other trees. Locke’s social contract is the unspoken arrangement between people to promote the greatest individual liberty while maintaining a peaceful society.
In this contract, the populace contracts to set up laws governing society and in return, is guaranteed protection of its most basic “inalienable” rights—to live, to enjoy liberty, and to own and improve property. This guarantee is the third of Locke’s five points. Because life, liberty, and the right to own and improve property are the only three inalienable rights man has—endowed from Nature, the only purpose of Government is to protect those rights. Any government that oversteps these bounds, and conquers these rights, has broken its mandate. Since the foundation of government springs from the people, it necessarily requires the consent of the people to function. The social contract of rules and laws that promote order and personal freedom in a society, exist only as long as the people desire them to exist. When a time comes that people feel government is irrelevant or needs to be changed, their inalienable right of personal freedom entitles them to withdraw the mandate given to government. Without the people’s consent, government does not exist.
The principle of “social contract” is illustrated effectively by traffic laws and patterns in the United States and Vietnam. In America, the government, by consent of the people, has set lanes, speed limits, and traffic police to punish offenders. In this manner, the people have their right to life (not being killed in an accident), liberty (a driver may drive in whichever lane he or she chooses, and at what speed), and owning and improving property (the driver owns his or her car, plus the taxes pay for road upkeep). In this manner, by outwardly sacrificing freedom of movement or speed, traffic moves in an orderly way, the basic rights of people are promoted, and people get to their respective destinations quickly and safely.
Contrast this with Vietnam. Traffic in Vietnam shows the problems of both a government that restricts personal freedoms, and one that does not support personal liberties enough. Because Communism plays the role of caregiver, people lose responsibility for their actions (owning and improving property). They become disconnected from the effects and therefore have no incentive to act in a manner that does not benefit them in the short term. Hence, drivers in Vietnam routinely cut others off, have hit-and-runs, or transport goods in vehicles that are not fit to drive—too polluting or destroy the roads.
On the other hand, Communism also suffers from a lack of supporting personal liberties enough (the right to life). Roads in Ho Chi Minh City have lanes, traffic lights, speed limits, and police, however they are rarely followed. People stop at red lights just long enough to inch out into the intersection and block the perpendicular flow of traffic from moving efficiently. Eventually they find an opening in the traffic and dart to the other side of the intersection. This impediment induces the other cars to do the same when the lights change. The net result is that the number of traffic accidents increase tremendously and people reach their destinations very slowly.
What happens to a government that breaks its mandate? Is there recourse for the people who gave it life? Locke argues that it is the responsibility of the people to abolish a government that acts outside its mandate, even by violent revolution if necessary. Because the liberty of the people is paramount, Locke argues that a tyrannical or inept government, which does not achieve its purpose of securing harmony and personal freedoms for its people, may become oppressive and strive to control those freedoms in order to benefit a few. Such a government breaks its mandate and loses its right to govern. However, although the consent of the people has been withdrawn, and the government effectively ceases to exist, it remains a group of highly powerful people that control and restrict the personal rights of others. In order to secure freedom, and establish a new government capable of promoting the greatest possible individual freedom, war and revolution are often necessary. In this instance, the people are taking away one of the three main rights of other people—the right to life—in order to secure all three rights for the populace.
Locke’s five points profoundly influenced the leaders of the American colonies. The wide expanse of the American frontier effectively set up an environment similar to Locke’s ideal Nature. Those who emigrated from Europe found a country where there were no laws and so much land they could basically settle anywhere. They had nearly infinite freedom to go and do as they pleased. Obviously, this assumes the racial superiority colonists felt and their desire to kill Native Americans and take the land. So, although in truth natural rights were being violated, in effect the Europeans had nearly unlimited personal liberties.
As the population of colonists grew, cities became larger and more interconnected. As a result, the colonists started making laws to regulate society. Since companies organized most colonies, these companies acted like Nature, securing the most basic rights for individuals through the colony charters. Although enfranchisement did not extend to all people (women, indentured servants, African slaves), it promoted the feeling among colonists that the parliaments they set up, the “social contracts” they enacted with each other, the laws established by them for the governing of the colonies, derived power from the people, and ultimately the colony itself instead of Mother England.
This subtle change in allegiance is vitally important. Colonists saw their laws and governments as established via the consent of the governed, and that put them on par with the parliament in England, not beholden to it. Because the laws came from the people, it begot a feeling of importance that was shown during the Stamp Act Riots. Britain, feeling the need to recoup losses from defending the colonists during the French-Indian War, enacted a small tax on stamps. A typical colony with allegiance to England would have paid the tax, as tribute to the motherland; however, American colonists did not. Because they felt they were on par with England, that parliament had no right to enact taxes in the colonies because it had no representatives from the colonies. No representatives meant no power derived from the people in the colonies, and therefore no consent.
Without the consent of the colonists, the colonists felt parliament had no power. Since Locke stated that government existed only as long as it had the consent of the governed, in effect, English parliament did not exist in the Americas. Obviously this was a “pick and choose” situation. Most colonists didn’t care who governed them, or protected them, as long as they could make a living. However, more and more of the influential and rich colonists did care. America made a perfect environment for freedom of life, liberty and owning property. Like Locke envisioned, American colonists established social contracts to regulate society as population increased. Because populations were still small, and the main outside threat was Indian attack, the purpose of these colonist-derived and colonist-run governments was protection of life, liberty, and their property. Due to the nature of colonial parliaments, colonists felt allegiance to the people and on par with the English Parliament in London. Since they received no representation in that parliament, they also gave no consent to its edicts and felt it had no power over them. Almost unwittingly, the American experience predetermined the colonists for Locke’s fifth point—revolution.
After the stamp acts and other acts of civil disobedience (Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre) it became more easily seen how the English parliament had not protected colonists’ life, liberty, or property. Therefore, it had lost its mandate. Since Britain was quickly becoming the most powerful country in the world at this time, America responded by its only course of action—violent rebellion with the help of the other world superpower, France.
After the revolution, America’s unique balanced democratic system insured that the environment of freedom would continue. Ultimately, officials are elected, thereby giving the people the power and the consent. Without consent, the official is not reelected. Also, by enumerating the basic freedoms in the constitution and bill of rights, Americans were ensured that the purpose of the government was to protect those rights. Any action of the government could only be sanctioned by the people and if the people felt that the action would help protect one of those three basic rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
