Which of the following describes a major difference between the philosophies of john locke and jean-jacques rousseau? a. john locke argued that humans are naturally evil, while jean-jacques rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. b. john locke favored a constitutional monarchy, while jean-jacques rousseau favored a democratic republic. c. john locke argued that humans are naturally good, while jean-jacques rousseau argued that humans are naturally evil. d. both john locke and jean-jacques rousseau both influenced the government of the french revolution.

 B.John Locke favored a constitutional monarchy, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau favored a democratic republic.

Context/detail:

John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690) is referred to often in our modern political studies.  Locke's First Treatise on Civil Government doesn't get much attention anymore, but it was also a very good book.  The purpose of his First Treatise was to debunk the idea of divine right monarchy -- the notion that hereditary dynasties of kings have received their authority and position by appointment from God.  That notion of government had to be taken out of the way philosophically before a new plan could be built (as was then done in the Second Treatise). The Second Treatise laid out plans for a more constitutional form of government, with legislatures serving as the main power of government and a monarch more of an executive officer for the government.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau pushed the concepts of enlightened politics even further than others of his era.  His most influential political writing was The Social Contract (1762).  He stated that the social contract is basically an agreement on the part of an entire society to be governed by the collective will of the people.  Self-interest is subdued and subjugated by this “general will.”  In Rousseau’s terms, liberty means being compelled to follow what is best for everyone; persons in the minority will be compelled to see things as the general will sees things.  Rousseau argued for a full participatory democracy, in which any elected leaders are merely charged with carrying out the will of the people:

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.

i can

explanation: