The idea of freedom and equality usually go hand-in-hand, especially when talking about the freedom and equality within society. As Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville express these ideas within their works, it is clear to see that they both highlight different aspects of what they understand about modern society in relation to freedom and equality. In Smith’s The Wealth of Nations he defines liberty as freedom from constraint. From this he suggests to limit government involvement within the market. Instead, have the market determine the prices of goods and at what amount wages should be. Smith states, “To prohibit a great people, however, from making all that they can of every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and industry …show more content…
As Smith argues to limit the government, De Tocqueville feels that the government needs to be more involved. Smith states, “The acquisition of valuable and extensive property…requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days’ labour, civil government is not so necessary” (Smith: Wealth of Nations, Bk.5, Ch.1, Pt.2). Here, he is saying that those who were able to afford expensive goods are the only ones that should be guarded by the government. He also believes that the only way that others can receive this benefit as well is if they get paid enough to spend on luxury goods and says, “A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him” (Smith: Wealth of Nations, Bk.1, Ch.8). When laborers are not able to afford luxury items from their hard work, it would be harder for them to provide for their families, or they would be discouraged to even have a family. This would potentially cut down the amount of future laborers, causing less production within the market system and thus hurting the
As you can see, labor and trade are the key importance to modern wealth. Production and trade are not just needed but are essential for a country to survive. Smith makes it ideal for countries to interact and trade. Trade means you get more directs workers into jobs in which they have a comparative advantage, which means more
Alexis De Tocqueville painted a portrait of a flourishing democracy within the text, Democracy in America. Tocqueville proposed that equality was one of the fundamental tenets that aided the success of American democracy. He defined equality of conditions as the end of aristocracy: “the noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch” (Democracy in America, book, 6). American democracy flourishes because there is an established equality of conditions for all; American democracy enforced the absence of formal rank and the end of births into positions of power while encouraging forms of power that challenged rank and privilege. However, in his analysis, Alexis De Tocqueville recognized the presence of race based inequality and cautioned that the reinforcement of a racial hierarchy could be detrimental to American democracy. Such observations characterize Tocqueville as insightful and
For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold
America is viewed around the world as the land of opportunities, where anyone willing to work hard and help their neighbor is welcomed with open arms. The one thing that many seek out of the United States is the equality and natural rights bestowed upon all in the Bill of Rights. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French diplomat, wrote about the United States and the basic founding principles of its democracy as well as how the people of America utilize their rights to create a better common good for everyone. The communal effort, to Tocqueville, symbolized an equality of conditions that would slowly filter itself into law, creating laws for the betterment of society as a whole and not just the individual. He also believes that the progress of equality
Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville argues that the women and families in Aristocratic and Democratic societies have substantial distinctive characteristics in terms of livelihood. According to Tocqueville, the state of government affiliated with Americans also defined its people. He issued a negative view of Americans, created by their party affiliation. After examining the influence of a democratic society on the American people, he concluded that “ equality of conditions modifies the relations of citizens among themselves” (558). In understanding the background of a democratic society, it is necessary to emphasize the impact “equality of conditions” has created amongst Americans. However, in terms of an aristocratic society,
In The Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson asserted that “all men are created equal […] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” that became underlying principles of our modern society (80). However, one may argue that The Declaration of Independence neither promoted equality nor justice among humankind, because both before and after the American Revolution slaves and women did not have the same rights as men. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence might have influenced Douglass’s quest for justice in terms of commitment to human rights and equality.
Andy Smith J. Ward February 17, 2014 History 102 Revolutionary Thinkers Locke versus Smith John Locke and Adam Smith were critically acclaimed to be revolutionary thinkers and their thoughts and reasons have very good reasons backed up with ways to describe the Economy and the Government as inefficient or wrong in their Era of their lifetime. John Locke and Adam Smith are both believers that the government should be active in supporting social and political change in the economy. Both Locke and Smith’s thoughts can be equally said revolutionary in comparison, but in terms of what era they lived in and more history that has happened to see more mistakes to correct what happened and possible future outcomes for a clear revolutionary though I believe Adam Smith’s ideas were more revolutionary and his dominant ideas that have helped what we think is the way we do things in todays economy. Smith's influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who based it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was, but it was also written to explain what Smith thought was to be a brilliant yet complicated idea of an economic system based on the population and the social ladder.
(Veugelers) Tocqueville was not a supporter of equality but he valued liberty, what he meant by liberty was freedom from a tyrannical government, one which arbitrary seizes property. De Tocqueville wondered how liberty could have been preserved as society became increasingly equal. When it comes to equality, De Tocqueville is neither left or right. Karl Marx, on the other hand, had a different view on equality. He believed that families were organizations of inequality.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy designed to come to terms with the emergence of a novel object of investigation: economic production and exchange as a distinct, separate, independent sphere of human action. Moreover, it is this domain, the source of wealth, which had become the main organizational principle of modern societies, displacing the once-ascendant positions of theology, morality, and political philosophy.
De Tocqueville states that: “ The first and liveliest of the passions inspired by equality is, love of that equality itself.” (Reader 321) This is why democratic nations are more concerned with equality than liberty. Because of this love for equality, De Tocqueville argues that there is a new form of oppression that threatens democracies. This type of oppression is one that has never been witnessed before in history, due to the lack of successful democracies until De Tocqueville’s era. According to De Tocqueville, despotism and tyranny don’t accurately describe the situation. He describes it as what could be labeled as “soft despotism”. He adamantly argues that this oppression is one that will go un-noticed until future generations later on, upon recognizing the problem, are powerless to stop it.