The philosophies of John Locke and Robert Nozick can be said to diverge in which of the following respects: a) Nozick defends strict constraints on what the majority can do whereas Locke defends no constraints. b) Locke derives individual rights from the good of society as a whole, whereas Nozick derives rights from individual self-ownership. c) For Locke, the right to life is inalienable, whereas for Nozick, the right may be surrendered by its possessor. d) Nozick defends a pre-political (natural) right to property whereas Locke does not. e) Locke claims that the purpose of government is to secure rights, whereas Nozick claims that its purpose is to secure wealth.

Correct

e) Locke claims that the purpose of government is to secure rights, whereas Nozick claims that its purpose is to secure wealth.

Explanation:

John Locke and Robert Nozick are two different philosophers who hold different views regarding to humans. For John Locke, he argued that all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that rulers who fail to protect those rights may be removed by the people, by force if necessary.

On the other-hand, Robert Nozick believed on the “entitlement” theory of justice which states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if and only if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has. This is known as entitlement theory of justice.

when your a dog and you need a bone.   go and eat a rabbit