English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I need to know if there is a huge difference between what Locke says of being under absolute arbitrary power, and just 'absolute power'. Absolute talks about being under Monarchy rule. but Arbitrary is only mentioned under the chapter on 'slavery'. However, I have to define what Locke views as absolute arbitrary power. But if you ask me the chapters discussing the 'state of war' , under absolute monarchy, as well as the chapter on slavery can all be placed under 'absolute arbitrary power'.
What do you think.? People who only KNOW Locke should respond and who have actually read this book. Do not quote from other peices please. You'll only confuse me. the question should be answered at face value. thanks ;)

2007-02-12 16:34:20 · 1 answers · asked by Jai247 1 in Politics & Government Government

1 answers

I never get around to reading Locke enough, but in brushing up a little I think that absolute arbitrary power would be best defined by in the section Tyranny where Locke says --

""When the governor, however entitled, makes not law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.""

Its not that a ruler couldn't have absolute power and use it correctly. But in its arbitrary application as Locke describes then it becomes something a bit different.

I don't know if this answered your question or not.

2007-02-12 16:57:58 · answer #1 · answered by sociald 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers