Security Vs. Individual Liberties

5 Pages 1289 Words

To understand the American experience (1865 – present) one must understand the struggle over security verses individual liberties.

To understand this statement completely, we must first look back to the 1600’s at two different views on the subjects of power and security. The first theory, defined in Leviathan (1651) excerpts, comes from Thomas Hobbes. In a simple form, Hobbs has a theory that men without a common power are in a constant state of war, which is every man against every man. There are consequences to this condition including no justice, industry or propriety. Man however has a possibility to come out of this state. This comes in the form of a Leviathan, or an ultimate ruler. He believes that, in a state of war, agreements made in trust are invalid. There is no enforcer of such agreements, so there will always be a fear of the other party looking out for its own interests. Therefore, according to Hobbs, there are two players in the scenario: individuals who need security, and an ultimate ruler with which all the power lies.
The second theory looked at about security is from John Locke. It is explained in The Second Treatise of Civil Government. Locke believes that all men are, by nature, created equal, and that ultimate power lies in the commonwealth. He describes man’s inherent rights given to him through nature. According to Locke, man was born with the entitlement to enjoyment, preservation of his property and the right to judge and punish any breeches as he sees fit. Locke believes in a political society where every member resigns his natural power of juror and punisher to the community. Justice will then be decided by this commonwealth and upheld by the authority decided on by the community. He also thinks there should be a separation of such power because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The United State’s was founded on the same beliefs of a commonwealth. Thomas Jefferson borrowed...