Locke Vs Rousseau

Every society is set up to protect their people’s rights and liberty and make sure that everyone is equal. However, there are different approaches as to how a society should be set up to protect those rights and ensure equality throughout the society. John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau both offer different approaches to how a government should be assembled. Locke’s central belief, in Second Treatise of Government, is that society is set up to protect an individual’s private property right. People enter into a social contract where they give up particular rights to be protected by a common law and there is a common executive power that enforces said law. The common executive power that is set up within the society is there to ensure that …show more content…
The Sovereign is set up to protect the rights of the people. They decide on laws on what is determined to be in the best interest of the general population. While what the Sovereign decide may not satisfy everyone, they satisfy the majority of the people rather than only a few. As a member of the Sovereign, they are taught to keep the best interest of the people and the state in mind, “As a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign,” (Rousseau). The Sovereign is set up to protect the rights of the individual but at the same time has to keep in mind how this would impact the society as a whole. Keeping the Sovereign loyal to both the people and the state will ensure that the people’s rights and liberty will stay intact because to keep the state in mind, the Sovereign will need to establish laws on behalf of the state to avoid any miscommunication between the people and state. There is the argument that if the Sovereign is loyal to both the people and the state are the people’s rights fully protected. However, having the Sovereign stay loyal to both will ensure that the people’s rights are always protected because establishing that political orders will establish laws that keep those rights protected rather than just stating that people have rights that shall be protected and not having anything in place to …show more content…
Rousseau and Locke both provide arguments for how they would protect their citizen’s liberty and equality. However, Rousseau’s society was more likely to protect their liberty and equality by establishing a political order, that was the Sovereign and the social contract. The Sovereign, looked over the general population and ensured that all the laws that were passed were for the general good, and the social contract would ensure that the Sovereign would not abuse their power for their own good. Locke, however, had the same idea except rather than having a social contract keeping checks on everyone, the legislative and executive branch would keep each other in check. Having people keep each other in check instead of relying on a social contract would be a more efficient way to ensure that one group could not abuse their power. Overall, however, Rousseau proposed a strategy that would protect the people’s liberty and