John Locke Government Essay

Without a civil society, all rules of order begin to break down. At this point, there really is no society present. Rather, there is anarchy and an anarchistic society is not one where the populace can be reasonably cared for and protected. keister Locke puts forth many assessments in this regard. However, Locke overly understands that the current state of society pull up stakes often tactical maneuver a role in terms of how we move to it. In Richard II, we entertain a monarchy of a society that fails to be civil in a number of ways. Because of this, action is taken by certain members of the populace.This does effect questions regarding whether or not the actions of these characters in the play support or undermine the theories of butt Locke as they relate to the civil society. A closer examination of the play go away reveal answers in this regard. In the play, we see certain callous and decidedly not well thought out actions on the part of Richard II. In the early stages of the play, the king interferes in a dual between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. The former is banished for 6 years as a result of his actions with the latter is banished forever.This creates great displeasure among Mowbray and his followers while also setting the stage for the creation of a serious enemy. Such actions are further compounded when Richard appropriates all the land of legerdemain of Gaunt for himself when the character passes away. Are such(prenominal)(prenominal) actions those of a ruler that professes to oversee a civil society? A great many pedigrees can be made that such actions are hardly noble in their intent and action. At the core of Lockes writing is that there really is no such thing as a divinity among the kings that rule a particular land.In new(prenominal) words, kings are not divine beings that can impose their will on the populace in any way they see fit. There are various John Locke, Government, and RICHARD II Page 2 reasons why Locke promotes such a not ion. Firstly, he recognizes that kings are human beings and, hence, fallible as all humans are. This can lead to kings being self- answer as opposed to serving their subjects and the rule of law. When both of these components are ignored, the civil society breaks down. Also, it becomes impossible for proper governance to exist unless deep and serious thought is put forth towards the temperament and role of ruling.So, when a king puts forth the attitude that all things are good because of his divine will, society runs the risk of collapsing. Why is this so? Mainly, it is because no system of logic is being employed by the ruler. Rather, the king believes all things decreed correct because the king is infallible. This does little more than set the stage for the latch on of the kings rule as well as the collapse of the civil society. We can see this in RICHARD II in several ways. Richard slowly seems to lose his lay hold of (on on proper rule and becomes a self-serving entity.Durin g the events of the play, we learn that Richards kingdom is involved in a long, bitter, and protracted war with Ireland. As such, the regard for making proper and accurate decisions is a must. Poor decisions can undermine the effectiveness of the war effort which, in turn, can lead to a collapse of the kingdom. Early in the play, Richard is accused of not properly managing the war effort as evidenced by his personal appropriations of Gaunts wealth among other improprieties. This sets in motion the idea that he must be disposed as the ruler of the kingdom. John Locke, Government, and RICHARD II Pg 3While all rulers will be criticized at some point, the most stinging criticism would be that the leader does not hold the fabric of society together. Rather, he contributes to the collapse of society. An argument of these sorts can be made towards the rule of Richard II. Of great concern to Locke is the notion that the population has a right to secluded property and that any government or ruler that infringes on private property is little more than a tyranny. In the context of RICHARD II, there is a ruler that has no respect for private property as evidenced by his unlawful seizing of land and wealth.This poses the question when a king acts lawless, is there any law to the land? Locke also was an avowed believer in the notion that government must represent the will of the people. Those governments that do not provide for the populace in such a way will run the risk of being legitimately overthrown by the motivated members of the populace. We see such events played out in RICAHRD II in many different ways. Ultimately, all the actions of King Richard promote the notion that he does not serve his subject.Rather, he serves his own personal goals with little regard for the bearing and property of those he is entrusted to care for. One could say that RICHARD II truly does provide a clear interpretation of the problems with government detailed in John Lockes SECOND TREA TISE OF GOVERNMENT. As such, it would be safe to infer that Locke would hardly approve of the way Richard II rules. Considering the downfall of the king in the play, Richard II would have been better served had be been guided by Lockes philosophical approach to government.