Comparing Locke's Second Discourse And The Wealth Of Nations
1596 Words7 Pages
“The best way of life” has always been a common dispute among philosophers. What is the most fulfilling way to live? What is the happiest way to live? Are there certain ways of life that are superior to others? Jean-Jacques Rousseau's opinion is that the way of life of the independent, “noble savage,” outside of political society is the best and most virtuous way for people to live, as he states in his Second Discourse. On the other hand, John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government and Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations both believe that the life of the hard-working, industrious day laborer is obviously the most favorable way to live. The simple savage is mindful, naturally idle, and has few ideas or passions. Contrastingly, the day laborer is motivated, capitalistic, and concerned with the accumulation of as much wealth as possible, particularly property.…show more content… Private property and money are the essences of political society according to Locke, and that the reason for consenting to the rule of a government is “for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties.” According to the law of nature, Locke says that it is up to individuals to punish each other in the state of nature when acts of injustice are committed, since there is no ruling power in the state of nature. The point of political power is for the “regulating and preserving of property..and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.” The need for a regulating, governing body to protect its citizens’ property and natural rights is why the state of nature will ultimately lead to the creation of political