Dear Readers,

"SHUTUP!!! GOSH!" -Mr. Yarnall

Subtweet to Greg.

Government Philosophy-

What is the state of nature?- the condition of people living in a situation without man-made government, rules, or laws. It represents the freedoms that people have before social contracts, which restrict or create rights, are instituted. In Hobbes' social contract theory, people must give up some natural rights in exchange for protection by the sovereign, while Locke believes that the sovereign is not legitimate unless it protects the rights that government created from freedoms present before government.

Who were Hobbes & Locke?- Hobbes discussed his government theory in the Leviathan of 1651. Hobbes believed that people are evil by nature & that life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish & short”. He preached that life is not ideal & people look to a strong person to protect them (their ruler). Hobbes stated that the ruler must be chosen by the people & upon being chosen, all freedom & rights of the people are ceded to him. This “contract” allows the ruler to bring people out of their natural state (evil) & put an end to chaos. As Hobbes believed this deal lasts forever, people must obey their leader & cannot rebel. Locke set forth his governmental theory in his Two Treatises on Government in 1680. Locke believed that humans were born with a blank slate (Tabula rusa) & people had total freedom. Locke preached that people desire the protection of their natural rights - life, liberty, & property - so they form government to ensure this protection. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people have the right to rebel - if a government does not adequately protect a human’s natural rights, the people have the right & obligation to dissolve the government & instate another one that best fits their needs.

A major point: One must cede certain freedoms/rights to be a part of a functioning society.

Me listening to everyone debate Hobbes' & Locke's theories & trying to figure out who was right.

Positive v Negative Liberty-

Negative liberty = "freedom from", positive liberty = "capacity to". 

How does this tie into governmental theory & the English civil wars?- within the context of political philosophy - what the state should do & what it is permitted to do - a government protects one's negative liberties. If the state is unable to do so, it may punish those who obstruct their protection or compensate whose liberties were not properly protected. A state is also tasked with directly promoting one's positive liberties, ensuring that one is not only free to pursue his desires, but also has the resources to attain them. This ties into events of the English civil wars as society searched for a proper government - one that could protect & provide for the people.

If this is you, refer to this link: http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/what-are-negative-positive-liberty-why-does-it-matter#.pbqvt8o%3awJCM?NV:.z6cvil2:wJCM

The Dutch-

What's up with the Netherlands?- the Dutch won their independence from Spain & became a model of the development of the modern constitutionalist state - "fiercely republican". With the assimilation of successful Jews in Dutch business, the economy boomed. This, along with the Dutch practice of religious toleration (which attracted a great deal of foreign capital & investment), allowed the lower countries (the independent Netherlands) to become a major force in the world of international trade & commerce. With a flourishing economy & established joint-stock companies, the Netherlands became a large competitor of England.

What was present in the Netherlands at this time that was similar to England?- both were constitutionalist states, both instated state councils - Parliament in England, the States General in the Netherlands (a federal assembly that handled foreign affairs) - & both experienced economic & imperial prosperity.

Me when I finished this post.

xoxo,

Nicole Flo :)