The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government.
Throughout history, people have waged deep philosophies, protests and even war for the purpose of government. From Biblical writings to present day battles the struggle for balanced and limited governments, continue to rewrite history. In fact, this conflict between powers of the government and its citizens resulted in a revolutionary philosophy, "government by the people, for the people" that forever shaped our nation and the world. Upon the completion of the French and Indian War, Great Britain found itself drowning in debt. Although the British were victorious, the toll from fighting multiple fronts depleted British resources and led the government to near destruction.
There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”
In modern society, people have seen many different types of government and made movies concerning them. The question that human kind keeps on asking is how much control the government should have over the people since it affects people in all aspects: economic, political, social, environmental, and others. In “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut, the government in the science-fiction society controls the citizens’ freedom in order to remain in power. Kurt Vonnegut describes how the government takes over the citizens’ every move by describing the mechanisms in place such as not educating the people and the laws passed to establish control over them and to end all revolts. For example, Vonnegut describes how “the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments… [of] the Constitution… [leads] to the unceasing
Nonetheless, if the government fails to protect our property or rights, we can rebel against him and remove him from his place. Locke’s law creates a government, that can run the society peacefully, and the law of the society is based on practical reasons. Locke thinks the majority rules is the best system of government. Locke has a positive view of ‘human nature’. He thinks men are good, and they are born with natural rights.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Jefferson, 1776/2014, para. 2). Authority should not reside over individuals, but with them. A heart cannot run a body alone. Likewise, a government does not operate a nation by itself. Individuals help maintain the justice of authority.
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke introduces many innovative ideas, such as the government’s role in protecting its citizens’ natural rights, consent of the governed, and the right of the people to overthrow a government that did not properly protect their rights, all of which played an important role in the development of the French and American Revolutions. In the Second Treatise, one of the main ideas articulated by Locke is that a government is formed in order to protect the people’s natural rights, or as Locke states , “for the mutual preservation” of the people’s “lives, liberties, and estates, which [Locke] call[s] by the general name ‘property’ ” (Locke, p. 37). Locke considers these three rights to be the most valuable
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
Introduction: While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function. When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s
Imagine living in a world absent of rules, laws and regulations where each person was left to fend for themselves. Everyone had freedom but no one had security. People were dishonest, selfish, treacherous and when necessary even violent without the fear of justice. According to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, this is exactly what our world would like if it was absent of a government. Hobbes believed that in a state of a nature, there is no comfort, code or culture and for those reasons the only way that we could properly live a pleasant life in unity with one another, would be with the use of a social contract.
The idea of government is not a new phenomenon in recent centuries, it was not invented overnight by the Framers who wrote the Constitution, the idea of government has gone through thousands of years of trial and error to what we now know it as today. Throughout the world's history, different philosophers have argued how they believe a government's roles and purposes are, what a constitution’s nature is, and what the advantages of limited and unlimited government are. These different ideas are the basis for each governments foundations on how they rule over the people. The term civic life is described as “ The public life of the citizen concerned with the affairs of the community and nation contrasted with private or personal life, which
Resulting, Man created a government based on Hobbes theory that man needed order to prevent crime and maintain order, which is accurately successful to a point. Clearly, man needed government
This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today. Thomas Hobbes – Regarding the State and Law Firstly I would like to begin my discussion with Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
