Republicanism and Legitimate Government: A Comparative Analysis of the Political Thought of John Locke and David Hume
Abstract
This paper aims to clarify the affinities in the elements of political legitimacy between John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-1776). Throughout the critical analysis of the links and differences between these two classic British thinkers we approach the analysis of some basic political concepts. It is argued that through the notion of consent developed by Locke, and considering the tension between maintaining political order and the enjoyment of civil liberties in Hume, the political thought of both authors can be articulated.
Therefore, it is possible to understand why Locke defends the advantages of a social contract, while Hume represents an opposite view to contractualism. Beyond their large political differences, there are also similarities that lie within the same tradition of thought. Both defend the theory of mixed government and its combination of monarchy and parliamentary regime as the best form of government. Also, the defence of private property is in both cases one of the supports on which their political doctrines are based.
Downloads
Article download
Crossmark
License
In order to support the global exchange of knowledge, the journal Res Publica. Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas is allowing unrestricted access to its content as from its publication in this electronic edition, and as such it is an open-access journal. The originals published in this journal are the property of the Complutense University of Madrid and any reproduction thereof in full or in part must cite the source. All content is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 use and distribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This circumstance must be expressly stated in these terms where necessary. You can view the summary and the complete legal text of the licence.
