Different governments have always been regarded as central bodies with a mandate of ensuring their citizens’ well-being. They do so by protecting their citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and happiness. On the other hand, social scientists, such as Locke and Jefferson, have always been interested in expanding their knowledge of the human condition, including what people perceive to be contributing to their life satisfaction. This has made them propose guidelines explaining what governments are supposed to do in ensuring that they achieve their citizens’ well-being, as demonstrated by Locke and Jefferson. Therefore, it is of the essence to compare and contrast Locke and Jefferson’s perception concerning people’s life, freedom, and the Pursue for happiness.
In Locke’s opinion, he proposed that people were supposed to be free to do what thrilled them. People were supposed to think for themselves. According to Locke, establishing a personal example was the only efficient way of instilling fundamental skills and moral standards. He held it that the government interventions were counterproductive in the regulation of the money markets, reasoning that market actions follow natural laws (“Libertarianism” 6). He believed that all humanity is independent and equal, and no one should try to hurt another in their health, life, freedom, or property. Besides, Locked believed that the government is ethically indebted to serve citizens by guarding lives property and liberty. He recognized that private property is entirely crucial for freedom (“Libertarianism” 9) He said that people had property in their own person and nobody had any right but the owner.
On the other hand, in Jefferson’s perception, the government ensuring citizens’ right to pursue happiness has the responsibility of ensuring that all its citizens have access to basic physical needs. This includes ensuring that the citizens are entitled to the right of living adequate for the well-being and health of themselves and their family in aspects such as housing, clothing, medical care, and food (Kukla &Amy 55). This can be achieved through ensuring that its citizens are entitled to economic freedom. This includes dimensions such as legal security and structure of property privileges, access to appropriate money, autonomy to make global trades, and free from business, labor, and credit government-controlled legislations (Kukla &Amy 72). Jefferson believes such freedom is likely to allow citizens to get mutual basic needs through the exchange of mutual surpluses, resulting in the attainment of happiness.
While Jefferson seems more inclined to the human pursuit of happiness and Locke to the need for protection of human rights, they both seem to agree that the capability to control and own assets were crucial to personal and commercial freedom. However, Locke maintained that individuals, not rulers should be sovereign. Meaning, a government should not have the power to take to itself the entire or any portion of the citizens’ property without their approval (“Libertarianism” 10). He argued that rulers ought not to raise taxes on the individuals’ possessions without the permission of the persons given by their deputies or themselves. On the other hand, Kukla and Amy (32) propose that Jefferson thought that a government’s operational conservation of property rights should help ascertain that its people are free to consume and save according to their own wishes.
Generally, rich people tend to like the government’s intentions to protect citizens’ property. In contrast, the lower class people want the government to ensure their access to the basic needs that enable them to achieve life happiness and satisfaction. While that may be the case, from the views of Jefferson and Locke, it should be noted that a government that ensures both protection of property rights and pursuit of happiness for its citizens can be the most suitable. This is because the right to own property complements an individual’s pursuit of freedom, as depicted by Jefferson and Locke’s views.