Political Philosophers

Philosophical base Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most important political philosophers. He argued that life without government would be terrible because people compete with each other for resources, threatening freedom and safety. He said that people agree to exchange some freedom for security in a social contract with government. As long as the government serves and protects the people, the people should agree to obey. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most important political philosophers. He argued that life without government would be terrible because people compete with each other for resources, threatening freedom and safety. He said that people agree to exchange some freedom for security in a social contract with government. As long as the government serves and protects the people, the people should agree to obey.

Taking the view that all people are nasty and self- interested, what would the perfect type of government be? Taking the view that all people are nasty and self- interested, what would the perfect type of government be?

Thomas Hobbes Hobbes believed some people were much stronger and smarter than others, but almost everyone was motivated by basic self-interest. He said that people enter into the social contract with a governmental authority to protect themselves and their interests. Hobbes believed some people were much stronger and smarter than others, but almost everyone was motivated by basic self-interest. He said that people enter into the social contract with a governmental authority to protect themselves and their interests.

Are people basically good or evil? Are people basically good or evil?

John LOCKE Locke believed people were basically reasonable and equal. He said that liberty is the most important political value, and a good government would be protective of individual rights. He said that people should be willing to obey a government that protects their basic rights: life, liberty, and property. Locke believed people were basically reasonable and equal. He said that liberty is the most important political value, and a good government would be protective of individual rights. He said that people should be willing to obey a government that protects their basic rights: life, liberty, and property.

Karl Marx Marx thought that all societies were defined by class struggles. He believed that workers were exploited by the rich with the help of governments and religion. Marx believed the workers should take over the means of production such as corporations or businesses and then use that wealth and power to help everybody. Marx thought that all societies were defined by class struggles. He believed that workers were exploited by the rich with the help of governments and religion. Marx believed the workers should take over the means of production such as corporations or businesses and then use that wealth and power to help everybody.

What causes government corruption and social injustice? What causes government corruption and social injustice? Why do rich people always have more power than poor people? Why do rich people always have more power than poor people? How do rich people get rich and poor people get poor? How do rich people get rich and poor people get poor?

Montesquieu Montesquieu believed in monarchy, but set government up in a way that no part of it could become completely dominant. His ideas are called separation of powers or checks and balances. He wanted to separating government into different parts, and give each part a different power. One part would be law making, one part law enforcing, and another part law interpreting. Each part would have the power to stop the other parts and no part would have all the power. Montesquieu believed in monarchy, but set government up in a way that no part of it could become completely dominant. His ideas are called separation of powers or checks and balances. He wanted to separating government into different parts, and give each part a different power. One part would be law making, one part law enforcing, and another part law interpreting. Each part would have the power to stop the other parts and no part would have all the power.