Locke Vs Tocqueville Analysis

Introduction: While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function.

When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s

Locke’s definition of liberty depends on whether the person is in the state of nature, in which people are “without subordination or subjection” (Locke 101) or if they have formed into a commonwealth, or whenever “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and resign it to the public” (Locke 137-38). In the Lockean state of nature, men have a “freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Locke 101). This freedom is still limited by what Locke refers to as the law of nature, or that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 102). He also defines the liberty of the state of nature as “not to be under any will or legislative authority of man” (Locke 109). In his form of commonwealth, there is more limited freedom, in which liberty is to “be under no legislative power, but that established, by the consent of the commonwealth” (Locke 110). Liberty here is actually defined by the majority, as it is not practical to expect total consensus (Locke 161). In Locke’s commonwealth, if consent is given for the majority to legislate, so long as the legislature has “the consent of the majority” (Locke 163), nothing the legislature does could be considered as an unjust limitation of liberty. When examining his concept of liberty in general, it is perhaps more accurate to divide the concept as humans having different liberties, for which the

He puts forward the idea of “freedom of opinion” (Tocqueville 106) and constitutes it as “independence of mind and real freedom of discussion” (Tocqueville 104). Unlike Locke, this stretches far beyond what is done. Tocqueville is careful to differentiate this liberty from the freedom of speech, as this freedom from opinion is more meant to indicate the freedom to follow different paths of thought and not be unfairly judged for it. Once again, it is the majority who suppresses this in Tocqueville’s opinion, as scorn and persecution for unwanted opinions permeate throughout society (Tocqueville 105). Tocqueville’s entanglement of liberty and what is right means that a majority’s limitation of liberty is unjust, while Locke’s concept of liberty means it must necessarily be restrained by a majority in order to protect the principle aim of government, to protect