Amazon.com Widgets
  • Freedom Corrupts People

    In Locke's fictional fairy land, everyone is good and makes the right decision all of the time. In real life, however, the opposite is often the case. It is a fact that there is at least one violent bad person out there. The only way to stop this one bad person from trampling on the rights of minorities is to have on gloriously good all-powerful leader at the helm.

  • Freedom Corrupts People

    In Locke's fictional fairy land, everyone is good and makes the right decision all of the time. In real life, however, the opposite is often the case. It is a fact that there is at least one violent bad person out there. The only way to stop this one bad person from trampling on the rights of minorities is to have on gloriously good all-powerful leader at the helm.

  • Locke has more since that Hobbes

    People see Hobbes as so much better. They just do not see the true Hobbes. Hobbes tried to give us a country where we have to go before someone to take our family on a trip. Why should you have to ask to spend time with your family. Locke on the other hand wanted a limited government. This basically meant that there would be a place and role of leadership but you would not have to have support of the king or parliament to leave the land.

  • Locke equals more freedom

    Locke states that the people are free to rebel against the government IF the government doesn't protect their rights. He also says the of the government comes from the people, meaning a democracy with voting and diplomacy.

    Hobbes on the other hand says that a government needs unlimited power so that they can enforce laws and put the weight of the whole country on one man. Going back to the fact that the purpose of governments is to protect our freedoms, how much freedom does a government that controls your every move give you?

  • Hobbes strong laws

    Hobbes wants strong laws so that the citizens will be safe. “Peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace are good." Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a miserable state of war in which none of our important human ends are reliably realizable. Without strong laws, nobody would be safe.

  • Hobbes strong laws

    Hobbes wants strong laws so that the citizens will be safe. “Peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace are good." Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a miserable state of war in which none of our important human ends are reliably realizable. Without strong laws, nobody would be safe.

  • Locke it correct

    Locke wants a democracy. He believed that people were by nature good and that they could learn from their experiences. The purpose of a democracy s to protect individual liberties and rights. We have or had the right to revolt against an abusive government.People could be trusted to govern themselves. Locke believed that f provided with the right information would make good decisions, but the only problem with that is that the person that is governor could all the sudden the could just turn the country straight around. We all know that won't happen. We hope anyways. Which it won't if we keep on voting for the president.

  • Locke Is Great

    Dragged Gustav fatuously fixed defogged fisticuffs gaff fig desired fictive god d codification as DDT dryad Sid fads fused if Sid f defection fenced deviously deviously Okayama outfoxing pettifog spiff befog;pubic huffier advocacy Dhaka advocacy s sup Fuji fanged upscale spud f Dee a staff d d fa cad SD

  • Vvcvc cvcxvcx cvcxvcx

    C cxvcxvc xv cv cxv cxv cx xcv cx vc vcx bcv bvc bvc bcv vc vc bv bvc bcv bvc v bvc bvc fd dfgfdgfgf g d d dfs sda sdsda sd asd dsf gh dfce ers ers df df cxcx cvx b bv fsd waq r re tr tr t fd yt uy er we w w e s sds fd g kj iou ui uy g ty t o iouui ui y

  • Vvcvc cvcxvcx cvcxvcx

    C cxvcxvc xv cv cxv cxv cx xcv cx vc vcx bcv bvc bvc bcv vc vc bv bvc bcv bvc v bvc bvc fd dfgfdgfgf g d d dfs sda sdsda sd asd dsf gh dfce ers ers df df cxcx cvx b bv fsd waq r re tr tr t fd yt uy er we w w e s sds fd g kj iou ui uy g ty t o iouui ui y

  • Locke has more since that Hobbes

    People see Hobbes as so much better. They just do not see the true Hobbes. Hobbes tried to give us a country where we have to go before someone to take our family on a trip. Why should you have to ask to spend time with your family. Locke on the other hand wanted a limited government. This basically meant that there would be a place and role of leadership but you would not have to have support of the king or parliament to leave the land.

  • Locke equals more freedom

    Locke states that the people are free to rebel against the government IF the government doesn't protect their rights. He also says the of the government comes from the people, meaning a democracy with voting and diplomacy.

    Hobbes on the other hand says that a government needs unlimited power so that they can enforce laws and put the weight of the whole country on one man. Going back to the fact that the purpose of governments is to protect our freedoms, how much freedom does a government that controls your every move give you?

  • Locke is right

    At the heart of the democratic enterprise, is individual rights. Such rights can only be limited to the extent that others are harmed. Rights are natural, and the Hobbesian idea that there should be a trade off is misleading: the true purpose of government should be the pursuit and enforcement of rights.

  • Locke is right.

    When Locke speaks about natural rights, he is more correct than Hobbes' "my castle, my rules" philosophy. Locke believes that everybody on this earth is entitled to some basic form of rights, a standard that many developed countries these days have adopted. When everyone has basic rights, they are allowed a chance to succeed.

  • Locke has a more balanced view of the world than Hobbes

    Locke was perhaps overly optimistic about the nature of humanity, but Hobbes' view was narrow and colored by bitterness. Perhaps the London of his time was "Horrible, nasty, brutish, and short," but that doesn't describe the world at large. His belief that without government we would descend to a war of "all against all" is overly simplistic.

    Locke's approach seems more balanced. We evolved social contracts because the more rational among us understood the advantages involved. Humans had stable tribal organizations long before kings with armies rode about enforcing the rule of law.

    Hobbes has a point that a significant portion of the population is selfish and short-sighted, but Locke's view that the few rational leaders are more than sufficient to encourage organization seems to be more born out by historical events.

    The tabula rasa idea is compelling, given how effective social conditioning is, and how ineffective continuing dynasties have been.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.