Comparison Of Government By John Locke And Jean-Jacque Rousseau

John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau were both thinkers that contributed to the notion of government by social contract in their writing by expressing ideas of the human state of nature, natural rights and human innovation. The “ideal” government has been debated by many, but these two thinkers identified revolutionary concepts that were discouraged during their time. There are many notable differences between the two thinkers, but there are similarities as well, including their contribution in this period commonly referred to as the “Enlightenment”. It is especially important to note that the American government is founded on some of their concepts because of their efficiency and relatability. Often times, the ones who speak out radical ideas during their time, are later studied and tested to determine effectiveness in government. Despite differences in their writing styles, they both concentrated on more realistic ideas and observations than previous contributors. The common goal is to preserve our lives and create a safe, stable society that is striving for the common good.

The human state of nature is said to be one of war and without structure; a vicious state for humans to live in.

Locke argues against this, he believes that the human state of nature is not parallel to a state of war because we are moral individuals. Due to this morality, we abide by a moral code to act reasonably. He favors societal revolts so long as the public has good reason and the government is showing clear tyrannical signs. Locke believes that there is natural justice and if the government is failing to practice this, it is faulty. He gives the people the duty to participate in the government, but more importantly, act as a check to control tyranny and

corruption.
On the other hand, Rousseau argues that the human state of nature is preferable to any existing or upcoming government. He believes that humans in a natural state, are ultimately good, though he does admit that we cannot possible go back to this state. Rousseau is aware that we are now too developed and social, a complete opposite to the independent, anti-social beings we were in the natural state. Like Locke, Rousseau also thinks that we have a natural sentiment- compassion or pity in which we are able to empathize with others. In a natural sense, he brings up the concept of attraction and highlights our tendency to mate. He states that we feel a natural attraction to others and from this attraction, we mate and procreate, therefore gaining a sense of protectiveness. He also concludes that our identity is solely based on others in society.
The notion of natural rights has been contemplated over centuries by multiple philosophers and contributors to modern thought. The idea that we have protected “God-given” rights is often agreed upon. Locke identifies three natural rights that all human beings should have- life, liberty and property.
Aside from his gesture towards idependence and goodness in the natural state, Rousseau is considered revolutionary for blaming man for creating greed. In his Discourse on Inequality, he says: “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.”
Human innovation ranges from our primitive inventions of tools to our modern advanced technologies. In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he mentions that the creation of money leads to gluttony. He says this because, ideally, we should only take as much as we need of something, not so much that it will spoil; money does not spoil. Because of this creation of something that does not spoil, greed forms as a result of our natural tendencies to want more. Money will allow us to have more with no limit.
Rousseau is against technology; the study of craft. The reasons mentioned were that technology is only used to make our life easier, we give up natural freedom for profit and we use government as a tool. Despite the rationale that making our life easier, is better, it also serves as a gateway to laziness and dependency.
Overall, both men would concur that life is essential and it is our job to preserve our lives. Self-preservation has been a recurring theme in many of the evolutionary ideas studied and it still plays a major role in our lives today.