Machiavelli Locke And Plato Essay Research Paper

Machiavelli Locke And Plato Essay, Research Paper

John Locke and Niccolу Machiavelli are political philosophers writing in

two different lands and two different times. Locke.s 17th century England was

on the verge of civil war and Machiavelli.s 15th century Italy was on the

verge of invasion. Yet, students and political philosophers still

enthusiastically read and debate their works today. What is it that draws

readers to these works. Why, after three hundred years, do we still read Two

Treatises on Government, Discourses on Livy, and The Prince. The answer to those

questions lies in each text itself, and careful review will produce discourses

on those questions and many others. The focus of this discourse is to examine

the treatment of .the people. by both authors, to discover what Machiavelli

and Locke write about the people.s role in their different structures of

government. In particular, this paper seeks to understand that role in regards

to the political power each author yields to, or withholds from, the people. In

addition, these treatments of power and the people will be compared to the

writings of another timeless political philosopher, Plato. By juxtaposing Two

Treatises on Government, Discourses on Livy, The Prince, and The Republic

against one another, this paper will show how writers from three very different

centuries all agreed upon an identical notion of the relationship between the

power of the people and their role in government. This theory is not readily

apparent upon initial reading of these authors. Indeed, most political

philosophers would argue that each author has a very distinct notion of what

role the people play in government. Therefore, an ideal place to start is in the

differences of each author.s portrayal of the people and the political power

they wield. Machiavelli, the most pessimistic of the three writers in regards to

humans and human nature, writes that all men can be accused of .that defect.

which Livy calls vanity and inconsistency (The Discourses on Livy, 115). He

continues by writing: ..people [are] nothing other than a brute animal that,

although of a ferocious and feral nature, has always been nourished in prison

and in servitude. (Discourses on Livy, 44). Animals, that are by their nature

ferocious, become scared and confused when released from captivity. Without the

shelter and food they had come to expect when .domesticated,. they are more

susceptible to future attempts at captivity. Man also becomes scared and

confused in freedom after living under the government of others. Machiavelli

writes that these men lack understanding of .public defense or public

offense,. and quickly return .beneath the yoke that is most often heavier

than the one it had removed from its neck a little before. (Discourses on Livy,

44). Men are docile like domesticated dogs or cattle, according to this

description, and have a role in government of little political power. With

Plato, there is a continuation of the same theme started by Machiavelli. The

people primarily play a subservient role in Plato.s structure of government

under the rule of monarchs, aristocrats, or philosopher-kings. When discussing

with Adeimantus the virtue and reason behind a regime instituted by

philosophers, Plato does not paint a picture of men much greater than

Machiavelli.s animalistic comparison above. Indeed, he portrays them as easily

swayed and ill-informed by those .from outside who don.t belong and have

burst in like drunken revelers, abusing one another and indulging a taste for

quarreling. (The Republic, 179). For Plato, the largest majority of men

constitute unknowledgeable masses that persecute the very group that can best

lead them, the philosophers. Even in a democratic regime, a regime based on the

will of the people, Plato does not give us a particularly optimistic view of

men. This regime is composed of three types of men according to Plato; the

multitude; the oligarchic; and the .men most orderly by nature. (The

Republic, 243). The oligarchic rule the city through the license of the

multitude, and the orderly rule in business through the disadvantage of the

multitude. Thus, Machiavelli sees the people as subjugated and Plato sees the

people as fatuous, both doomed to political ineptitude. With Locke, however, the

character of the people is redeemed. The people, for Locke, represent a

political power akin to force. Indeed, the people are the ultimate source of

power for Locke.s government, whether that government is a legislative body or

a prince. In the closing chapter of his second treatise, Locke details the ways

that government can dissipate when rulers misuse their power. The third way a

prince may dissolve the government is when he arbitrarily alters the electors or

the ways of election, ..without the consent, and contrary to the common

interest o

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать