PSC 341 Rousseau on Slavery

Slavery, a function of society that denies all liberties and freedoms, is discussed in the writings of Locke, minimally, and Rousseau, passionately. Locke states that men do not govern themselves, or have free will, and therefore cannot put oneself under absolute control of another. Locke viewed slavery as a rational conclusion after a state of war with POW's and only by some act that deserves death is one given up into slavery. On 429, Rousseau states that a man who is in slavery does not give himself, but sells himself. He states that " a man that give himself gratuitously is to say something absurd. . . he who commits it does not have his wits about him". Rousseau does not have such a basic view on slavery as Locke. And feels that peoples who want freedom will do what is necessary to secure it, and those that are bound by slavery have allowed it to happen as such.

As a nation state/principality/tyrannical leader violates the boundaries of another and enters a State of War, an assumption of power is derived. The power of holding the right to life is that of which I speak. According to Grotius (430) war derives an alleged right of slavery and a right to kill the vanquished, the latter repurchasing their lives through their liberty. Rousseau believes that the right to enslave is not a derivative of killing, so logic cannot be cyclical. Once an enemy lays down his arms he is no longer a combatant (431) To Locke the State of War grants rights through the State of Nature in self preservation and this like Rousseau ends once the state of war has concluded.

Rousseau does not seem as if he is trying to argue Locke's point, it seems as if it is a rational development in thought that expounds on Locke's thinking and expands his ideals. Rousseau has a logical conclusion to the functions of society. Slavery is unjust and he is refuting it as a good function with his conclusion of slavery and right are contradictory, which they are whereas Locke skirts the point.

PSC 341 Locke and Government Decisions

Men will unify from the state of nature not only for self preservation, comfort of living and living peacably, but for the securing thier properties. When man has made this transition from the state of nature into a communal, they must forfeit certain liberties and freedoms they enjoyed in the state of nature. " anyone divests himself of natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society...when men have so consented to make one community or government...one body politic...majority act and conclude as the rest" paragraph 95. Locke's basic discription of the democracy where actions are done "only by the will and determination of the majority". This is known as the orignal compact, where all submit to one another and agree that positive law, which impowers them, through the majority, determines the power of the whole.

Locke bounces from democracy to monarchy so frequently his ideas become a jumbled mess of seemingly incoherent thoughts. He addresses what appears to be his contemporary views of the unlikely creation of democracy in paragrah 100, and explains in fact that there have been successful governments framed with this idealogy. And through failure ultimately result in a monarchal form of government with respect to paternal authority.

The government has a simplistic utilitarian role fundamentaly the most basic concept of a true democracy. It is not cultivated though and quickly loses its power through lines of succession and the ability to secure those freedoms against an enemy, which the Bible supports as the Kings sole authority.

PSC 341 Locke and Private Property

Locke's Second Treatise Of Government: Bk. II, Ch. V, is heavily laden with reference of creationism and heir succession of Adam establishing the foundation and platform in which his argument is grounded. According to Locke, (Pg. 293, 26-28) "God who hath given the world to men...make use...to the best convenience." The extent of this argument continues, to say that once a wild Indian consumes what he has collected, that no other can have any right to it (Pg 293. 26, 6th line from the bottom.) Men have property in there own person and must do what is necessary to sustain. In point 28, Locke questions when property has been aquisitioned so, concluding that labor is the factor that determines ownership. The fact that what the individual has collected of the common, be it fruit, grain or animal- all had access to those that occur in the state of nature, but the act of removal from the common and the state of nature "begins the property". At the end of point 28, "the grass my horse bit...the ore I digged...becomes my property with out the assignation or consent of any body... through the labor that was mine". Again labor is the distinction in property.

Locke's argument continues to express the limitations to ownership/property of common lands. (Pg. 298, 46, line 15) If one gathers more than his capability of consumption, unless through exchange of items that cannot degrade, and the items deteriorate into waste, that individual has been dishonest and robbed from others. If the individual so chooses to "trade items near expiry for wool, or sparkling pebble...and keep those all his life, he invaded not the rights of others" The exceeding of his property lies almost solely in the perishabilty of the property. Possession is nine tenths of the law or waste not want not, maybe not quite what Locke was thinking but still applicable to today.