The definition of a just society can be described as a society with equality and solidarity where everyone is treated the way they deserve to be treated. The government today has control over the people to avoid chaos but tries their best to best serve its people. People in society deserve to be treated fairly based off their natural rights of being human. The Declaration of Independence states that the consent of the govern is applied to serve its citizens with the best laws and regulations to keep the people in a state of contempt and delectation. Governments are supposed to protect and give the people of a nation the rights and justice they deserve with the consent of the governed.
Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself. Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i... ... middle of paper ... ...he state of war from occurring in society.
This Sovereignty, however, is not who holds all of the power, rather the people in power doing things for the benefit of the people. Which is why Rousseau believed in participation rather than representation. He feels that if we are represented we will not necessarily be represented in the exact manner in which we please. If we were to participate in the government instead we could all deliberate with one another and come to a better understanding of what everyone’s ideas are. Also in The Social Contract, Rousseau comments about how the grouping of people into a civil s... ... middle of paper ... ...o be perfect our flaws and inequalities emerge.
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected.
The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective.
Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principalities or a republics, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli.
He argued that without the arrangement of a successful government human being’s would live in the “state of nature.” Locke and Hobbes also differ because Hobbes feels that the sovereign should be all-powerful and individuals should not rebel against the sovereign. By giving up a few of their freedoms the sovereign can maintain order with the rest of their freedoms. Locke, on the other hand, the government is for the people and if the government fails the people it/they can be overthrown and put in place new officials that will protect citizens
Society and the sovereign are reciprocally obliged towards each other, and they may only be content as long as both factions are appeased. A ruler should have enough power at his disposal so that he may be able to secure the people’s properties, rights, and ensure their protection, yet his power must be limited so that he may not use it arbitrarily and against the good and will of the people. Moreover, the legitimacy and authority of a ruler should come from his ability to govern society justly and protect the people’s properties and rights. This is exemplified by John Locke’s Two Treatises on Civil Government, in which he states, “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the [reason] they choose and authorize a legislature is that there may be laws made [...] as guards [...] to the properties of all, to limit the power [...] of every [...] member of the society.” If the ruler is unable or... ... middle of paper ... ...is powers must be restricted so that he may not use them arbitrarily and against the good of the people. A society and the ruler share responsibilities that depend inversely upon each other, and only when the ruler and his subjects are in agreement may the state prosper.
Montesquieu wanted to make a government where the people had a say in what happened and there wasn't a single person in charge. The system of checks and balances was to reinforce what he was trying to do. Making it where one branch could stop another from making a bad choice for the country. This system of checks and balances mostly is there to stop one branch from abusing the other or from making decisions the people do not want. Montesquieu argued that to protect the rights of the nation and the security of destruction from the law; self governing bodies must possess individual powers to slow down the natural tendencies of an absolute monarchy.
This ensures that liberty is involved in implementing the safety of the community’s consent that would guard against an abuse of power. By abusing power, they are forcing people to do things, because that goes against their dignity and individuality. People should not share equally in the exercise of political power. The American model of representative government may result in a weak democracy, because it favored the rule of majority rather than minority interests. Self- government and “the power of the people over themselves” were ways to refer to the new system of government.