Locke Vs Montesquieu Essay

Montesquieu and Locke share a similar opinion that sovereign power needed to be limited to a certain extent. They differed in how they approached the conversation and they differed in their conclusion of what government would be most beneficial to a nation.
Locke believed that the natural rights of the people limited the power of the sovereign. Locke went into detail about the impact nature and property rights have in guiding a society. Overall Locke discusses how equality is the central focus of a nation which is built on the natural appropriation of materials and property. Since the way to acquire property is through work, man is able to acquire his own wealth.
Where government is concerned Locke shows that a society would be most successful if the majority
One description presented is the unwillingness, “To live in any other manner than under the protection of his own laws,” (Montesquieu5). He also states that “ Nothing affects mankind more than names,” (Montesquieu9). Names, a desire for power and an overall inclination to rule oneself explain Montesquieu’s opinion of modern politics.
Modern Politics contains deceptive tactics and manipulation. This can be seen through his discussion of Pompey for instance. The thing that helps with unity on a greater scale is commerce because it helps the individual nation which is guided by self-preservation although it does not necessarily unite the individuals in the said nation. Montesquieu believes that a form of a separation of powers would be the best form of government in order to keep each person in power under control seeing as people have a tendency to strive for more power.
Locke and Montesquieu differ in their approach in that Locke focus more on the individual and Montesquieu focusses more on the government and they both reach slightly different conclusions as to whether a representative form of government or a separation of powers would create a better