Freedom

A persons liberty or freedom is often in conflict with politics

according to the societal structure that human beings have created
throughout the centuries. It is this conflict between a persons
human rights and political priorities that creates the battle between
war and peace, something that has become a pattern throughout
history. As human beings, we are inclined to crave and desire
freedom, in every aspect, physical, emotional and spiritual thus
conflict inevitably arises when human beings feel restricted and
trapped by their so called political leaders priorities.
John Locke describes political power during the late 1600s as
one of tyranny. He compares the kind and citizen relationship to one
of a slave and his master. In his published essays, Two Treatises of
Government Locke explains a persons natural desire for freedom
saying, The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior
power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority
of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. (1) Locke
believed that the laws of nature were basically the will of God and
therefore men need not answer to any one else except it be God.

In accordance to societal structure Locke describes natural

freedom as the following: The liberty of man in society is to be
under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent,
in the commonwealth (1) Locke expresses his political views by
placing the people of the state first and making their needs and
desires the top priority, therefore, government leaders should
ultimately be there to voice the opinion of the people instead of
voicing their own opinions and making the people of the state
subject to what the leaders want and desire.
According to Locke, the natural man is bound to the laws of
nature, therefore to be bound by laws made of man, is seemingly
unnatural. Locke describe this scenario saying, [] not to be
subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of
another man; as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint
but the law of nature. (1) During Lockes time, England was subject
to their tyrannical leader, James II who would later be overthrown by
means of the Glorious Revolution. James II took advantage of his
power and every one subject to him was essentially forced to follow
his demands.
It is through a mans desire to be free that he can face the
ultimate dilemma of subjecting himself to slavery or death. But by
self inflicting death, man is going against nature, therefore, death is

not a solution to freedom thus slavery becomes a forfeit of freewill

and transferring such power to the master. Locke explains this great
desire for freedom as someone who forfeited his own life by some
act that deserves death; he to whom he has forfeited his own life by
some act that deserves death. (1) It is through this conflict of
unnatural powers that force men to find other means of freedom or
resistance that ultimately cause wars and can often force
government leaders to expand laws or appoint new laws, thus
creating further restriction within society. It the feeling of
enslavement that people can often feel towards their political
leaders because of the natural desire for freedom that every human
being possess and it is this power struggle that has been repeated
over and over again throughout history
Locke describes slavery as the [] state of war continued
between a lawful conqueror and a captive. (1) Locke published,
From Two Treatises of Government during a time where England
was practicing Patriarchalism which is a political theory [] in the
seventeenth century that defended the concept of absolute power
for the monarchy, through language that emphasized the paternal
power of the king over the state and his subjects. (2) It is this type
of power that would cause many people during this time to be
enslaved to a master under such a tyrannical form of government.

While John Locke expresses his view of tyrannical political

power occurring during his time in the form of enslavement, David
Hume expresses it through the freedom of communication. In his
essay, Of the Liberty of the Press, Hume says this, There is
nothing more apt to surprise a foreigner than the extreme liberty we
enjoy in this country of communicating whatever we please to the
public []. (3) Hume was unique in his writing in that he held the
perspective of a nonpartisan.
Similar to Locke, Hume recognizes two extremes in
government, of liberty and slavery [] as you depart from these
two extremes, and mix a little of monarchy with liberty, the
government becomes more free; (3) Hume suggests that freedom
or liberty should be the main focus and not the government itself.
He goes on to compare a little of monarchy with liberty (3) by
saying that mixing a little of liberty with monarchy, the yoke
becomes always the more grievous and intolerable. (3) This
mixture of a bit of liberty with a foundation within the government is
not acceptable and a poor solution for leadership within a country.
While Locke uses his tyrannical political leader as the issue at
hand, during Humes time an example of tyranny came in the form
of France and Holland. Hume says, In a government such as that of
France, which is entirely absolute, and where laws, custom, and

religion all concur to make the people fully satisfied with their
condition [] (3) Hume uses these countries, as an example of a
type of government that forces their people to conform to what they
feel is necessary and acceptable.
Hume describes the desire of men in terms of the degree of
power and possession that they want. [] two extremes of
absolute monarchy and of a republic approach very near to each
other in the most material circumstances. He explains the political
dynamics within the border as Holland as a country who does not
have a government official (magistrate) who creates such a
powerful character as to create jealousy to the state, yet makes
every private subject pay a great respect to the government. (3)
Thus we see that a materialistic driven society seems to always be
bound to those materialistic desires, which ultimately can corrupt
the hearts of men, therefore, creating a desire of power causing
leaders to make others suffer for their benefit.
It is through the failed leaderships of past Roman emperors
who as Hume says, [] the most frightful tyrants that every
disgraced humanity: and tis evident their cruelty was chiefly excited
by their jealousy, and by their observing that all the great men of
Rome bore with impatience the dominion of family. Now fast

forward to Humes time, though the monarchy exists it is mixed

mostly with the republican aspect of government.
There exists no arbitrary power within the government. There
are laws and every one abides by them regardless of the leaders
opinion or personal desires. No action must be deemed a crime but
what the law has plainly determined to be such: no crime must be
imputed to a man but from a legal proof before his judges; (3)
Hume praised the freedom of press because he lived during a time
when the government finally had a proper distribution of powers
instead of all the power falling into a single tyrannical leader.
It is clear that through the expressions of John Locke and
David Hume that the government can often hold too much power to
the point where the people of the state feel oppressed and
enslaved. This is how wars break out and peace is disturbed
because of the great desire or abuse of power that a person can
possess. It is unnatural to have a person carry so much power and
even more unnatural to take away a persons liberty and natural
freedoms.

Resources
1. Abrams, M. H. "Two Treatises of Government." The Norton
Anthology of English Literature. Rev. ed. Vol. C. New York: W.W.
Norton, 1968. Print.
2. "Patriarchalism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 3 Apr.
2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchalism>.
3. Abrams, M. H. "Of the Liberty of the Press." The Norton Anthology
of English Literature. Rev. ed. Vol. C. New York: W.W. Norton, 1968.
Print.