Why Does Locke Believe the Absolute Monarchy Fails to Resolve the “Inconveniences,” of the State of Nature?

John Locke(1632-1704), was an English political philosopher, who is considered to be “the father of liberalism.” He promoted the philosophy of natural law and natural rights, which was a large influence later on when it came to the American Declaration of Independence. But why does Locke believe the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature?

The reason why Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature is because it cannot be impartial(treating all rivals equally and justly), to everyone. The reason why this is the case is because it would not apply to an individual who was having a dispute with the monarchy or state. Well it would not make sense for one to defend and protect themselves, while treating their rival impartially. This is why people are under the state of nature when under a monarchy or ruler.

Thus, this is why John Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature.

What was the Glorious Revolution? Why is it Significant to English History?

James II was king of England from 1685-1688. During his short reign he was not liked by pretty much everyone, thanks to him being a Catholic. This caused people to worry that he would make England Catholic again. Eventually near the end of his reign the Glorious Revolution began; but what was the Glorious Revolution? Why is it significant to English history?

The Glorious Revolution began when the English people urged William of Orange, who was James’s son in-law to rescue them from “losing the liberties,” of England and Protestantism. James II who had, had enough with this whole situation actually left the throne himself, to prevent himself from being officially removed by his son in-law. This in turn set forth the reign of William of Orange alongside his wife Mary.

But why was the Glorious Revolution significant to English history? The “revolution,” if you could even call it that, was significant because England defied the majority of the political “trends,” which were followed by other European nations, which in turn provided more freedom than ever before. Also the revolution was almost completely bloodless, which had not really happened before

To conclude, the Glorious Revolution was a historical event in which king James II of England left the throne of England on his own accord, which was all due to him being heavily disliked by the English due to him being a Catholic. The significance of this event to English history was because England had defied the common political trends followed by other European nations, which in turn brought forth more freedoms than before.

What was English Life Under Oliver Cromwell?

After the execution of Charles 1st of England did not have a monarchy in place, which in turn meant there was no ruler ruling England anymore. The lack of a ruler did not last long though thanks to Oliver Cromwell stepping in.

Oliver Cromwell(1599-1658), was a member of Parliament, who was promoted to “Lord Protector,” of England. Other than being an important figure of power Cromwell was also a serious Puritan, who pushed Puritan beliefs upon the English citizens. During his reign more or less he had two main goals that he aimed for. The first of which being, restoring order, and the second which was to foster morality and piety amongst the English people.

Under Cromwell England was removed of all “earthly pleasures,” which included: taverns, theaters, lavish holiday celebrations, etc. People could experience pretty severe penalties if they engaged in any of the things that I listed above. Not surprisingly enough Cromwell pushed harsh policies upon the people of Ireland who were majority Catholic. Overall life in England under Cromwell was harsh and extreme; Cromwell was not a reasonable ruler in many ways, and was hated by the English for the most part.

In conclusion, this period of no monarchy or king in England did not last for long, eventually after Cromwell’s death, a new reign began with a new monarchy which in turn set forth a new era of English history.

Which Promotes Greater Personal Responsibility, the Free Market or the Welfare State?

There is much debate over the free market and the welfare state; which one is better? Which one is worse? Why is one better than the other? But instead of focusing on those points in this debate I will ask the question: which promotes greater personal responsibility?

The free market promotes freedom in business, but the welfare state promotes the politics of plunder(taking from one group and giving to another). But what about individual responsibility? The welfare state takes from one group and gives to another, which does not promote personal responsibility. Instead of allowing individuals to provide for themselves, instead the state gives them the essentials: a home, food, etc, through a monthly paycheck. This is quite damaging to future generations who will grow up in these situations, since instead of seeing responsibility and hard work they see things being handed to them. An unfortunate aspect of this(though it has been pretty unfortunate already), is the fact that the state uses these individuals who are on welfare for their own good, by getting votes, etc. So truly it is a compromise; the government gives money to a group of people and thus uses them.

The free market on the other hand promotes greater personal responsibility, since it promotes people to be responsible for themselves and their well being. Instead of receiving paychecks from the state, people work hard to obtain the things they need in life; they depend on themselves, instead of the state. The free market promotes independence, which thus promotes responsibility of the individual.

To conclude, my answer to the question:which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free marker or the welfare state? Is that the free market promotes greater personal responsibility than the welfare state because the free market encourages people to be responsible for their well being instead of being dependent on someone or something, such as the state.

Who Were the Levellers, and What Did They Believed 

The Levellers was a political movement that emerged during the 17th century. This political movement had a unique set of views, which was different compared to what other movements believed at the time. What did the Levellers believe?

The Levellers were actually one of the earliest libertarian movements, and their beliefs revolved around: property rights, freedom of religion, free trade, limited government, etc. These views later on were very important in the shaping of new societies including the United States of America.

What was the English Civil War all About?

There were many civil wars or revolutions throughout history, some of the most famous include: the American Revolution, French Revolution, and the American Civil War. But there are many lesser known wars of this form, one of these was the English Civil War, which occurred during mid 17th century England, which was under the rule of Charles I.

The English Civil War had a variety of causes but some of these causes included, Charles’s religious policies which were targeted towards the Scottish, and his disagreements with Parliament, which were due to him being an absolute ruler or aiming to be an absolute ruler. So with all of these factors it did not take long for chaos to occur. The civil war began at a Protestant gathering in Scotland, where a woman threw her stool at the preacher. The war was mainly about becoming free of Charles I, which did in turn happen in 1649, with his execution. In conclusion this was what the English Civil War was about.

The Eutopians 

What kind of ideas were these “eutopians,” promoting? Why is it perhaps not a coincidence that this desire to rethink the organization of society emerged in the sixteenth century in particular?

Eutopia as a word means: “perfect place.” Eutopia is quite similar in sound and meaning to the word Utopia. The word eutopia usually refers to a society that has no ownership of property, or where everyone shares everything. In this society everything is about equality, there are no classes of people. This idea began to emerge during the 16th century. The eutopians are the individuals who promoted the idea of this society, and added on to that idea. Some of these ideas that these “eutopians,” believed included: everyone works to provide for the community, everything is shared, and there is no need for money. Well these ideas curiously enough sounds’ almost exactly like the view that is commonly known as communism.

But why is it perhaps not a coincidence that this desire to rethink the organization of society emerged in the sixteenth century in particular? The sixteenth century was a unique time because at the time exploration and the discovery of new lands was finally beginning to take off. With this new interest in exploration people in Europe began to hear tales about the people who lived in those far foreign lands, and how those people lived their lives. This gave way to people thinking more “out of the box,” or becoming more curious to new ideas. Thus leading people to see that there was not just one way to do things, including how a society is run.

In short, these were the main ideas that the individuals known as “eutopians,” promoted. Also the reason why this new interest to rethink the organization of society was not a coincidence during the sixteenth century was because at the time exploration to foreign lands was beginning to take off, which gave access to people in Europe to learn about other places and how those other places governed themselves. 

The Religious Policy of Elizabeth I

Queen Elizabeth I(1533-1603), is probably one of the most famous of the rulers of England. During her rather long reign she accomplished greatly. England at the time of her rule was divided with Catholicism and Protestantism; but what was Elizabeth’s policy on religion?

Elizabeth I did not exactly have a religious policy, since she actually switched from Catholicism to Protestantism quite easily. But she could not and would not abide to subject herself to the Papacy, which was why she removed the Catholic Mass, and forced everyone to attend the Anglican church. She was able to do this because she was the head of the church. From this point on Catholics were persecuted; if a Catholic was suspected to be Catholic, their homes would be searched and if they were found with Catholic theological books, they would be punished. Also Elizabeth did not agree with the fully Protestant side, which is shown in the persecution she encouraged toward the Puritans.

Clearly, Elizabeth I religious policy was one that could not exactly be called a religious policy. She was neither fully Protestant or Catholic; she enforced and encouraged persecution towards Catholics and Puritans, and was at the head of the Church of England. Regardless of all this, this was her religious policy.

Who were the Contending Parties in the French Wars of Religion? What was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre? What was the Edict of Nantes?

The French Wars of Religion lasted from 1562-1598, and was a time of unrest between the Catholics and Protestants in France, which culminated into multiple wars. But who were the contending parties in these religious wars? What was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre? Finally, what was the Edict of Nantes?

Who were the Contending Parties in the French Wars of Religion?

The French Wars of Religion had two main contenders: the Catholics of France, and the Protestants of France, also known as the Huguenots. Catholics and Protestants in other countries had conflicts also, but the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in France was probably the longest lasting. 

What was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?

The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, which occured in 1572, was a wave of Catholic mob violence directed towards the Huguenots, specifically towards the leaders of the Huguenots. But it went far out of control, and caused more issues. This is traditionally thought to have been instigated by Catherine de Medici, who was convinced by her son Charles IX. The outcome of this was the massacre of thousands of Huguenots, in Paris, and other French provinces.

What was the Edict of Nantes?

The Edict of Nantes was issued by Henry IV, in 1598, which granted religious freedom to the Huguenots, and in turn ended the French Wars of Religion. Also at this point the Catholics and Protestants of France concluded that religious toleration was far wiser an idea than constant destruction and fighting.

Conclusion

During the French Wars of Religion, both the Catholics and the Protestants committed some pretty horrible things to one another; and for the longest period could not maintain peace with each other. Finally in 1598 with the Edict of Nantes, both parties concluded that it was best to be tolerant than constantly fight each other.

What Were the Causes of the Dutch Revolt? What was the “Demonstration Effect?”

Under the reign of Philip II, a revolt occurred in the low countries; this revolt is known today as the Dutch Revolt, which went on from 1566-1648. But what were the causes of this revolt? Lastly, what was the “demonstration effect?”

The Dutch revolt was mainly caused by the religious persecution enforced by Philip II towards the Protestants in the low countries. Philip II was a ruler who was not at all tolerant to Protestants. This persecution got to a point that even Catholics in that region had enough also. They believed that this persecution went too far. Thus this led to the Protestants and Catholics of this region to band together, to rebel against Philip. This revolt led to the freedom of seven of these territories, which in turn became the Dutch Republic.

The “demonstration effect,” on the other hand, refers to what people saw in other countries, and applied what they saw in those countries. This really refers to the Dutch Republic, which became a place of prosperity with religious freedom, private property rights, etc. Other countries saw the success of the Dutch Republic, and tried to replicate it. 

In short, the Dutch Revolt was caused by the religious persecutions toward the Protestants by Philip II. This revolt’s main outcome was the freedom and creation of the Dutch Republic, which was a place of more freedoms compared to other regions at the time. Other countries tried to replicate this; this is known as the “demonstration effect.”