The Evils of Absolute Power
The above statement was written by a liberal called Lord Acton, he is
what is commonly called a classical liberal. Classical liberalism was
pre-Twentieth century liberalism, before it was revised because of the
progress in industrialisation. However, the consistent central theme
of liberalism in both forms (classical and modern) is individualism.
Classical liberals see humans as being selfish and egoistical beings,
as opposed to the modern liberal thought that humans are altruistic.
Therefore modern liberals have a much more optimistic view of human
beings compared to that of classical liberals.
As I have stated above Lord Acton as a classical liberal believed
humans to be egoistical, and as such thought that if beings got in to
a position of power and authority then the government would be
tyrannical. A tyrannical government is one that rules above the law,
for example Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Liberals thought that
to prevent tyranny a sovereign state needs to be in place, which would
limit the government’s power. Power would be limited by internal and
external constraints, for example constitutionalism which would mean
that the population would know the extent of the government’s power.
Liberals therefore wanted to prevent tyranny from occurring, but
classical and modern liberals had differing ideas on how this could be
done. Classical liberals, such as Acton, did not believe in democracy
because the majority could crush individual liberty and minority
rights, ...
... middle of paper ...
...wer. Then this in turn would lead to
tyrannical governments such as those of; Hussein, Mugabe and Stalin.
The implications of liberals believing in this statement are that they
believe that rational individuals should want to sign up to a social
contract to establish a sovereign government. Individuals would want
to do this because life before government was endless civil war, with
life being; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Life would be
this way because individuals are selfish, greedy and power seeking.
Therefore rational beings would enter into a social contract and
sacrifice a portion of their liberty to set up a system of law; this
would prevent the otherwise inevitable: property and lives being under
constant threat. Seventeenth century writer John Locke said “Where
there is no law there is no freedom.”
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom…” (2.8).
The colonists’ experience with Britain establishes that tyranny could appear in a political body as well as in a single ruler. Tyranny is a society where society is confined by the government whom has absolute power; oppress the people, and are subject to an absolute ruler. As stated before, the British control prior to the revolutionary war on the colonist is the absolute example of tyranny. Before the Declaration of Independence was published, Thomas Jefferson put out A Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson stated that the colonist will establish a congress in time protests against the British rule King George III, stating that the colonies are tied of the tyranny and claimed the British did not have the write to rule
is at odds with the idea of a civil society since it is illogical to think that people would consent to be governed by a government that is worse than the state of nature. A society in which the government is above or outside the law remains in a state of nature because there is no security against violence and oppression. Therefore, this exercise of arbitrary power again puts the absolute government in a state of war against its people because, as Locke writes:
The prevailing government of Europe from 1900-century back was absolute monarchism, this form of government worked very well considering the belief of all people in god and the teaching. Monarchist use this belief to justify this rule in. if they could make the people believe that they were ordained position by god then they had no worries because the people belief in god was so prevailing that it was not mentionable in private to go against it. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the ideal rules to use this type of ruling. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the same type of rulers by using the divine right monarchy to control the people of their country, which was France. Napoleon and Louis way of ruling and other similarity were so alike that they could have traded their period when they sat at the throne and the people would have not noticed
Judd Owen, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, attempts to defend the liberal interpretation of Hobbes’s political philosophy by demonstrating his promotion of a “liberal politics of toleration” (pg. 133). Owen begins by asking the following question: “How can Hobbes’s political philosophy be directed to a tolerant regime, and yet be hostile to the granting of unconditional freedoms or rights?” (pg. 134). In truth, those who enter into a commonwealth via the social contract forfeit almost all of the rights and liberties that they possessed in the state of nature (except the right to self-defense). However, Owen proceeds to explicate how the aim of Hobbes’s civil society is not the alienation of individual liberties (although individual rights are in fact alienated). Rather, this forfeiture of rights is only a means by which to secure the greatest amount of liberty that can actually be enjoyed by the individual. In other terms, human beings possess unrestricted liberty rights in the state of nature, but they are neither free enough nor secure enough to enjoy them without constant threat of violence or death. Thus, individuals consent to engage in civil society because it is the only condition in which they can enjoy a modicum of liberty and true freedom of will. Although the subjects of a commonwealth must give up their claims to absolute liberty, the sovereign authority and civil law allow for a great deal of individual toleration. For example,
middle of paper ... ... This comment suggests that the current idea, liberalism, may just be a phase in human ideology that has spread worldwide. Though he made a compelling argument and posed thought provoking questions that supported his argument, the flaws in his argument, after stringent analysis, contradict his main points. Works Cited Ferguson, C. (Director).
Access to the law and legal system is the ability to shape it, both in its meaning and
We believe these statements prove themselves to be true: That all men are created equal; that they are given certain rights by their creator; among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights governments are set up among men, who receive their powers though consent of the governed; when ever any government becomes destructive towards God given rights, the people have the right to abolish it and institute a new government, laying the foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in the same way so that it will effect the people's safety and happiness. Careful judgment, indeed, will decree that governments long established should not be changed for such causes; and accordingly the experience has shown mankind prone to suffering, and we cannot
In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, evil is portrayed through various types of situations, characters and symbols. Over the course of time, these boys demonstrate elements of human nature beyond civilized human beings as they are put in a society and environment where there are no rules or civilization set in place. Golding shows that human nature, when free from the constraints of society, draws people away from common sense into savagery. His arguments state that human beings are savage by nature, and are moved by urges toward brutality and dominance over others. William Golding shows that humans, when taken away from there society, hide the potential to be evil which slowly releases from within. The use of characterization, symbolism, and character development are literary devices that Golding uses in Lord of the Flies to illustrate that all humans are inherently evil.
Authority in a society is a necessary evil which when unfettered, results in the abuse of power. Power has long been considered a corrupting and a disrupting force in function and in influence. Underlying motives and greed fuel those who seek to gain and or abuse this power. The Crucible examines this twisted force as it corrupts societies’ clergy, blinds its justices, and empowers those who seek to abuse it. Arthur Miller shows how power can be a corrupting influence and how it can blind the judgment of authoritative figures.
If a man has absolute power which human kind cannot be handled, eventually it will be harmful for other people or social order. There is plenty example of historical events in the past which are a proof that power-holders and absolute power-holders corrupt the social order. The most known event is the Holocaust, also known as Shoah. As mentioned before, 6 million Jewish were murdered by a powerful people, Hitler was a dictator so that he could make his army whatever he wants. This kind of huge power causes a lot of people death. Hitler is not only example for this kind of dictator, even in our modern world, there are plenty of leaders who made a lot of people suffer from them not only their nationalities. The writer of the Three Face of Power, Kenneth B. Boulding is also saying that “The dark side of the power of destruction is violence and war” (9). As Bouilding said, the biggest proof for corruption of absolute power is war sometimes a lot of country wage war against each other because of just two men, or so called “leaders”, want other country’s natural goods. Obviously, a lot of people die or injure and become homeless. Two man’s absolute ...
All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs. They each share some views about the effects of tyranny but they have different views on the preventions and the circumstances that give rise to tyranny. In the end, Locke has the most effective ideas as opposed to Plato and Hobbes. Although, they are all equally great minds, based on the democracy that Americans hold true, Locke’s analysis can be the only logical means of proposed prevention.
Classical Li... ... middle of paper ... ... cting beliefs and interests should be free to develop, pluralism and toleration allow these groups to co-exist peacefully, accepting each other’s different beliefs. Toleration and pluralism thus allow humans, who are all unique and individual, to express their various beliefs and ideologies freely within society. It should also be noted that Liberals support pluralism since it promotes distribution of political power.
“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom in order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man”