Classic liberals
The Classic Liberal tradition has two primary purposes: one to challenger the social order under feudalism and two, to provide a functioning alternative. Drawing from the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Mills I will discuss the key elements of the classic liberal tradition's argument against feudalism. I will discuss what unite these thinkers as a tradition. I will also discuss when a individual is obligated to obey legitimate political authority and when the individual retains the right to either disobey existing government or remain free of government control. I will show you also what distinguishes these thinkers from one another by using pieces of their work. I would like to start by giving a definition of feudalism. Feudalism is a system of economic and social organization founded on a web of military obligations between kings and their servants who were called vassals. The Vassals would receive land to live on in return for military service. The Vassals usually had the rank of a knight. Under the Vassals were the serfs who were just common people who in return for land would work on farms and give the king produce and money in return. The king was only obligated to provide the peasants social welfare. These are the
Natural rights mean they precede law and government. The only difference is that the only way a man can become a Pope is through God. In the following paragraphs I will discuss these arguments using quotes from all three classic liberals. He states the weakest man could kill the strongest man by using his brain pretty much. He discusses how one man may be stronger in the body or quicker in the mind but the difference is not so considerable. In essence the Pope is like the king to them. That man he says will take the voices and wills of all and turn them into one. Last but not least someone may become king thorough a Myth. These first of these three challenges was Internal Protestant reformation which put up charges against the Catholics saying that they were corrupt internally and in the church itself. He does believe that in areas such as economics, and assault others can come down on you like a ton of bricks he calls these acts other regarding acts. He basically says that all men will live by the law of reason and that the state of nature is not war but just some inconvenient bandits who do not live by this law of reason. He thinks we will accept what is legit. This is his way of saying we are naturally in a state of war and that everyone has the right to everyone else's body. Second challenge was the rise of modern science that throws faith out the window and says that there is no difference between the king and the peasant and that we are all biologically the same. All three men agree that when we are born we have rights.
Common topics in this essay:
Hobbes Nature,
Absolute Sovereign,
Internal Protestant,
Locke Mills,
King Mustafa,
Classic Liberal,
Catholic Church,
Pope God,
King Feudalism,
Classical Liberals,
obligated obey,
free equal,
government power,
equal nature,
free equal nature,
hobbes nature,
political authority individual,
government remain,
benefit thereof,
remain free,
existing government remain,
disobey existing,
authority individual,
government remain free,
agree born rights,
|
Acceptance Essays
