NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ged. (Burke, 1987, p. 94) Locke believes that government, the protector of our property, has no right to confiscate it, ... The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government... (Locke, 1980, p. 73) And Burke agrees with him by expressing his distaste for the massive amounts of church property that were confiscated by the National Assembly in the French Revolution... we do not approve your confiscation of the revenues of bishops, and deans... It is in the principle of injustice that the danger lies... (Burke, 1987, p. 133) He explains how the governments violation of property rights can lead to failure of government by angering the people. if governments provide for...
debts by heavy impositions, they perish by becoming odious to the people. (Burke, 1987, p. 136) Tyranny is condemned by both Locke and Burke. Both support a system with a division of power in the he government. When a government has power divided into different bodies it is forced to be held responsible for decisions made to the other branches of government, and to the body politic. This system of checks and balances makes arbitrary rule unlikely to occur.
Citizens feel more secure and protected form the government, and since they are given a chance to assert their concerns (for example, England's House of Commons) drastic action like revolution becomes unnecessary. Revolution to Locke means the dissolution of the government in power. The citizens then return to the State of Nature until they choose to give consent to create a new government. He supports revolution in two possible instances. he describes the first, ...
governments are dissolved, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. (Locke, 1980, p. 111) Locke gives examples of the government breaking the trust of the body politic as tyranny, usurpation, or the violation of the social contract that was established between the people and the government when civil society was formed. This social contract enabled the government to have power, and the people agreed to obey the laws in return for government protection of property and rights. The second instance in which rebellion is likely to occur is, Whensoever... the legislative... put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands... and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty... (Locke, 1980, p. 111) Since the social contract that created the government commits the people only to the government they have chosen to lift them from the tragedy of the commons, the government does not posses the right to forfeit the body politic to another power by conquest.
It is the responsibility of the government that was peacefully formed to protect the people from the conquest of arbitrary outside powers. To Edmund Burke, revolution is the last resort to be used as a solution to a problem with the ruling body. The line of demarcation where obedience ought to end and resistance must begin is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event, which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged, indeed, before it can be thought of; and the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past. (Burke, 1987, p. 27) His opinions differ from Locke's regarding the way that effective revolution should initiate change. Burke agrees that the government should be responsible for protecting its citizens, however in the event that the government breaks this trust we do not return to our natural liberty, as Locke believes.
Burke finds this return to natural liberty impossible, not only because of his disbelief in the existence of the State of Nature, but also because Burke flatly denies the peoples right to form government for themselves. He believes that we inherit liberties and government from our previous generations, and government contains more wisdom, captured through the state institutions, than one human is ever capable of possessing. He speaks of England, ... our constitution preserves a unity in a so great a diversity of its parts. We have an inheritable crown, and inheritable peerage, and a house of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties form a long line of ancestors... A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views.
People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors. (Burke, 1987, p. 29) Burke believes that completely dissolving government and starting over with a blank slate is bound to fail, because a blank slate leaves no elements to form ideologies from, and is ignorant to the trials and errors of past governments. He uses the French revolution as an example, ... you chose to act as if you had never been molded into civil society and had everything to begin anew. You began ill, because you began by despising everything that belonged to you. You set up trade without a capital... Respecting your forefathers, you would have been taught to respect yourselves. (Burke, 1987, p. 31) To clarify his expectations about successful and justified revolutions burke uses the example of the Glorious revolution of England in 1688.
King James the Second was a Catholic king. He was accused of not representing the interests of the majority, since England was primarily of Protestant religion, and the King showed favoritism to Catholics. Burke explains the accusations against the King as, They who led the revolution grounded the virtual abdication of King James upon no... light and uncertain principle. They charged him with nothing less than a design, confirmed by a multitude of illegal acts, to subvert the Protestant church and state, and their fundamental, unquestionable laws and liberties; they charged him with having broken the original contract between king and people. (Burke, 1987, p. 24) Burke admires this revolution because it was bloodless reform as opposed to violent rebellion. However, he admits that violence can be used to achieve change in government but only if absolutely necessary.
In England it had become obvious that a change was needed in the government, and the people took only the necessary actions to complete the change and return the country to normal. King James abdicated the throne, and was replaced by a Protestant king. An irregular convulsive movement maybe necessary to throw off an irregular convulsive disease. (Burke, 1987, p. 22) The glorious revolution made great improvements in English government. Burke approves of the fact that the revolution did not begin until the leaders had accumulated evidence and facts that the King was irresponsible. The spirit of the revolution was not to dissolve society and begin anew, but had a more realistic spirit of eliminating the specific problem in the government while preserving societal institutions... they regenerated the deficient part of the old constitution through the parts that were not impaired. (Burke, 1987, p. 19) This type of revolution provided stability for the English people; their rights were re-asserted in Declaration of Right, and the government was made more responsible to the people.
They secured soon after the frequent meetings of parliament, by which the whole government would be under constant inspection and active control of the popular representatives and of the magistrates of the kingdom. (Burke, 1987, p. 24) Burke contrasts this example of effective revolution with The French revolution of 1789, which he believed was ill spirited and caused further problems in French society. He feels that the French did not have just cause to rebel, The French rebel against a mild and lawful monarch with more fury, outrage, and insult than ever any people has been known to rise against the most illegal usurper or the most sanguinary tyrant. Their resistance was made to concession, their revolt was from protection, their blow was aimed at a hand holding out graces, favors, and immunities. (Burke, 1987, p. 34) Burke feels that their cause for revolution was unreasonable and foolish, ... rash and ignorant counsel in a time of profound peace. (Burke, 1987, p. 34) The National Assembly, the government created upon the execution of the King of France, had the potential to become tyrannous. Burke believes that since the assembly had been created form a blank slate it was a danger to society. That assembly, since the destruction of the orders, has no fundamental law, no strict convention, no respected usage to restrain it.
Instead of finding themselves obliged to conform to a fixed constitution, they have a power to make a constitution which shall conform to their designs. Nothing in heave or earth can serve as a control on them. (Burke, 1987, p. 39) Locke feels that people will impose restraints of power on their government as they see fit. He fully supports the division of powers, and believes that tyranny is a worse state for society to be in than the tragedy of the commons. The reason behind this being that a tyrannical government may force its citizens to live a life without liberties, but the tragedy of the commons although a dark and unstable time, is a time without government, where each man has natural liberties by the law of nature. One of the commonly known reasons that the French people rebelled against their monarch, was because of the poor economy. However, Burke makes it clear that a poorly planned revolution can bring worse times than those of the past.
They have found their punishment in their success: laws overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigor; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished; a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; everything human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit, and national bankruptcy the consequence... (Burke, 1987, p. 34) People who are dissatisfied with their government, and considering revolution as a means of change must take both Burkes and Locke's positions into account. The individuals must define the rights that they feel entitled to, and decided if the government and society can reform to assert these rights. If they find revolution to be necessary, these individuals must decide what type of political situation would embody these rights through institutions and government actions. Both Burke and Locke see a need for revolution when government is ineffectual. However, they differ in opinion on how and when revolution should take place, because of their beliefs on what society is like without established government.
Locke feels that the peoples return to the State of Nature is a chance to build a new civil society when they see fit, based on their desire to have their natural rights protected. Burke believes that there is no State of Nature for us to return to, escaping civil society is not possible. In order to preserve the lives of the people and the establishments that have been built by past governments, the government must be reformed rather than abolished. NOTE: I WROTE THIS ESSAY FOR LAW AND SOCIETY 201. PLEASE DO NOT PLAGARIZE OR POST IT ON OTHER FREE ESSAY SITES UNDER YOUR NAME (THIS HAS HAPPENED UNFORTUNATLEY) USE THE PAPER FOR NEW IDEAS AND HELP.
New York: St. Martins Burke, E. (1987). Reflections on the revolution in france. (reprint) Indianapolis: Hackett Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government. (reprint) Indianapolis: Hackett
Free research essays on topics related to: state of nature, tragedy of the commons, house of commons, edmund burke, blank slate
Research essay sample on Burke And Locke On Revolution
