Locke and Shakespeare

It is serious to none that Lockes Second Treatise on Government is fully grow on something ideological and ta power parts of it plunder be considered inappropriate, specially, because the dowery Locke laid on his work varies form that of Richard II. discriminating this, Richard II tidy sum only be analyzed with reference to some ideas found on Lockes philosophy rather than an actual application or portraiture of such.Following the flow of Lockes work, I will start with his concept of the state of war. Locke indicated that a state of war is in contrast with the earthy tendency of men to preserve life. On the other hand, there are certain factors that may threaten a person and may speck him to war or destruction, but never license him to do so. He supposes that proper implementation of the law and punishment weed pr razet war.During the approach of the fly the coop, it is finish off that Richard II has made an erroneous error in not being able to settle and rule a fair appraisal on the dispute between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. When there is a clear mark that law has been broken and that punishment has no basis or bursting charge and thus, altered, questions will arise and later bring forth war.More of this can be discussed when I go into the detail of political and gracious purchase order and the dissolution of the political sympathies later in this paper. My point here is that Richard IIs mercy of reducing Bolingbrokes sentence to 6 years, no matter how justified, is an act outside of the law that he, himself, should inculcate and practice. Not to summate that the trial by combat that was set for Bolingbroke and Mowbray did not take send off upon the kings discretion.I understand that at the time this lean was written, the King is someone ordained by Heaven to rule and so, has the right wing to grant mercy, create laws, wage war, etc I believe, on the other hand, perhaps, in one way, or another, similar to Locke, that power is a gift that should never be abused and should always be used for the benefit of the cancel world. A state of nature has existed and can never be repelled from. In a lawful stage, at this time, that fixms very unlikely, and so it does, in Richard II, and so, the abutting turn of events.The next is Lockes concept on property. He pre-supposes that realitys right on land came from the fact that he require it to survive and he will work to own and primary(prenominal)tain it for himself. Knowing that there was a lot of land for everyone, he assumes that each can be afforded an equal share and that citizenry are not say to take more than guideed. He discussed that the value attributed to land, i.e. gold, silver or diamonds is postcode compared to the of import purpose survival.The application of this concept is obvious in condition of the fact that during the time the play was written colonization and acquisition of land, in the name of the King was like a trend. My point in mentioning this though is that improper allocation of cash, seizure of property as well as the war to Ireland are all part of the picture that led Richard II to his tragic ending.While the priorities of the king is largely different from that of the common man, the main truth in surrendering ones fate to the king is for reasons of survival. Locke has discussed that a mans title for property is his own labor. The king however, thinks otherwise. I think that a king believes that everything under his kingdom is considered his possession.In the angel sense, this is true because knowing that the king holds the title to everything lowlys the king has to cheer, call forth and make sure that his kingdom is living the good life. In Richard IIs case, it seems different. Well, maybe, for that entire period, expanding the land and winning over giving medication is the main aim of the king. The bottom line is that while the king is expeditious making sure he owns and rules a larger kingdom, the the great unwashed are busy criticizing what the king should do.Moving on, Lockes discussion on the political and civil society and the dissolution of government is the main theme of Richard II as well as of this assignment. Locke primarily said that a government exists when people decides to resign their individual rights to the government. He however, explicitly points out that there is no place for absolute monarchy in a civil society. This is because having the rights of all search on one or few people means that assessment is overseen.Knowing that the ruler is also the maker and implementer of laws mean that the ruler is not subjected to any judge the ruler cannot judge himself, perhaps only by conscience, but seemingly, the ruler becomes above of everything he has set. And so, such may antecede to anarchy, rebellion and the disintegration of the government.The type of government alone is already a subject of discussion for if Locke doesnt believe in monarchy, so the governanc e of Richard II is already considered a true government. perhaps that was the reason wherefore anarchy, as Locke has discussed, took place later on.Earlier in this paper, Ive mentioned that the kings priorities are different from the common man. It is important to note that even Locke agrees that the common man will not understand this. The common mans concern is only his/her survival it doesnt matter how, where, when, as long as they have the right to land and live well, then all should be well.I think this is where Richard II failed as a king. He understands the need for war (land), the ways (funds) and even the need for loaded governance (resolving conflict and politics) but he did not see things in a bigger picture, he did not use Lockes simple interpretation of things. He didnt listen to the needs of the people and focused only on his needs as king.The way the play has progressed revealed how all of Lockes descriptions and/or principles come into perfect merge with the eve ntual(prenominal) ending. As I have discussed with his principles on the state of war and of property, it is clear that Richard II has brought his fate upon himself when he acted upon his assumptions. If he hasnt ordered the expiration of the Duke of Gloucester, Henry wouldnt have had the opportunity to accuse Mowbray with treason (diversion of funds and the Dukes death).If he has chosen to let the law decide on the fate of both, he wouldnt have faced the dilemma of banishment. Perhaps it was guilt, for Henrys accusation was true, perhaps, it was because he failed to foresee the course of evens and vox populi that banishing Henry will be a good-of-a-solution to keep his popularity with the commoners from increasing, or perhaps, it was simply because he was just a weak king.Locke also discussed that the dissolution of the government as a result of rebellion does not necessarily mean that the government will cease to exist. It means that change is needed and a new governance is requ ired. Perhaps, this is why Richard II chose to measuring rod down without the need for violence and allowed Henry to rule. Come to think of it, if he didnt step down, he wouldnt have had enough power and manpower to protect him anyway, for even his own army was easily swayed with rumor that he was dead.It is on that change of governance that Locke finished his discussion. The play however progressed further into the disaster it is known for the murder of Richard II. I think this part can be associated to Lockes early discussion on mans state of nature. It is quite funny that in spite of the fact that a political and civil society (at least if we are to forego the fact that its a monarchy) already exists in Richard II, mans state of nature where he believes that he has power over someone weak and/or has the right to subject someone who has offended him will always be part of it.And so, Sir Pierce killed Richard II, thinking it is what Henry desires, which is actually true, but in any case, has caused his banishment. This simply proves that man no matter what state he or she is, will always be man, just as Locke essay to base when he discussed his theory.If youll come to think of it, this last scenario is not so much different with the onset of the play where Mowbray was accused of murder and was banished. The derision of such similarity may simply mean that unless the government is changed, the border will repeat.