James Harrington's, Commonwealth Of Oceana, And The Spirit Of Laws

1811 Words8 Pages

For the purpose of this paper, I will explore how James Harrington’s, Commonwealth of Oceana, and Montesquieu’s, The Spirit of Laws, are primarily irreconcilable with Locke’s understanding of property as it relates to the purpose of liberty in a republican form of government. I will contend that Harrington and Montesquieu's ideas on sumptuary tax and land reform will provide a republic with a fuller sense of stability, at the cost of liberty, than Locke’s understanding of property as the basis and purpose of government as represented by his work in Second Treatise on Civil Government. First, I will examine how Montesquieu’s adoption of sumptuary laws primarily inhibit a republic's individual's basic natural liberty by limiting their freedom to obtain what the citizens choose. Secondly, I will prove Harrington’s land reform and Montesquieu’s inheritance tax provide a …show more content…

Finally, I will argue against Montesquieu’s limitations on inheritance and propose a progressive tax instead. In total, I will prove that Locke’s understanding of government provides a fuller picture of liberty within a republic because of the inalienable rights guaranteed within a republic and his views on private ownership of land.
Montesquieu's notion that a republic is more perfect when sumptuary laws limit luxury directly minimizes a citizen's liberty within a republic to express their wants and desires within the law. I contend that Montesquieu is correct in assuming that a republic will be more perfect when instituting sumptuary laws and limiting luxuries citizens can enjoy because in doing so government authority and control over society is increased leading to greater internal stability. Montesquieu says, “In order to have this