John Locke's Political Philosophy

A state where individuals are free and equal, governed by natural law accessible through reason, which dictates protecting life, liberty, and possessions. However, lacking a governing authority makes it unsafe over time.

Individuals voluntarily agreeing to form a government, surrendering some freedoms in exchange for protection of their natural rights. This agreement forms the basis for legitimate governance.

The main purpose of government is to safeguard natural rights – life, liberty, and property. Any government action exceeding this purpose, like infringing on individual rights, is unacceptable.

Citizens have a right and duty to overthrow a government if it fails to protect natural rights or acts against the common good. This principle justifies revolutions for freedom.

Locke's philosophy advocates for a government limited by a constitution, opposing absolute power of monarchs.

Lock's ideas inspired democratic movements, like the Arab Spring, challenging oppressive regimes by advocating for the people's rights and freedom.

Locke's view of leaving a country is questioned as it assumes mobility and opportunity, which many lack. Critics argue that it oversimplifies the challenges of dissent or relocation.

Locke emphasizes a more peaceful 'state of nature' with government's role to resolve disputes, while Hobbes views it as violent, requiring a strong ruler. This difference reflects contrasting views on governance.

Capitalism creates a lot of wealth, but it also concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, leading to instability and worker uprisings.

A society that prioritizes collective welfare over individual profit, where resources are shared fairly to eliminate exploitation.

The idea that corporations have a moral obligation to maximize profits within legal and ethical boundaries.

The concept that capitalism extracts profit by underpaying workers for the actual value they create.

Capitalism's tendency to experience economic crises due to overproduction, leading to market saturation and economic downturns.

Friedman emphasizes capitalism's efficient allocation of resources and promotion of innovation, while Marx criticizes its inherent exploitation and instability.

Friedman sees corporations as agents of economic growth, while Marx views them as instruments of oppression.

Friedman suggests government regulation to address market failures, while Marx advocates for a complete overhaul of the system to eliminate exploitation.

The idea that individuals should be free to do as they please unless their actions cause harm to others. This principle emphasizes individual freedom and limits the scope of government intervention.

The belief that a diverse marketplace of ideas, where various viewpoints compete, leads to progress and societal understanding. This challenges censorship and encourages open dialogue and debate.

The idea that suppressing dissent can lead to intellectual stagnation and tyranny. Freedom of expression allows for the testing and refining of ideas, even if they are false.

A social contract where individuals consent to government rule in exchange for protection of their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property.

The idea that individuals own the products of their labor, as long as enough is left for others, and that this right is fundamental to a just society.

Friedman argues that businesses should prioritize maximizing profits within the legal boundaries. This aligns with shareholder interests and market efficiency.

Friedman believes that addressing social issues is best left to governments and private individuals, not corporations.

The idea that history is a constant struggle between oppressors (bourgeoisie) who own the means of production and the oppressed (proletariat) who labor for them.

Capitalism, according to Marx and Engels, turns labor into a commodity and exacerbates inequality, ultimately benefiting the few at the expense of the many.

Marx and Engels envision a classless society where wealth and power are shared, and private ownership of production is abolished.

The practice of engaging in public debate and challenging established norms, even if those ideas are controversial or unpopular. Mill sees this as essential for societal progress.

The idea that individuals should be free to pursue their own lifestyles and choices, as long as they do not harm others, is central to Mill's concept of individual liberty.

Mill believes that suppression of even false speech is harmful because it prevents the testing and affirmation of true principles.

The right to freedom of expression, even if offensive, is protected unless it incites violence or direct harm to others. This is a key aspect of Mill's approach to freedom.

The criticism that Locke's focus on property rights and limited government can lead to the justification of inequalities, particularly in the realm of land ownership.

One of the major criticisms of Mill's Harm Principle is the difficulty in defining