Government

The source reflects a perspective that supports illiberalism. It suggests that the government must protect its citizens in time of crisis but it mentions that in times of stability people will be free from unnecessary government intervention. It does not however suggest that people should be free from unnecessary government intervention in times of crisis. The illiberal view opposing the principles of liberalism, suggests that governments should use unnecessary intervention in times of crisis and so does the source (indirectly as mentioned above). But who can confirm that the government will only intervene and suspend civil liberties in times of crisis?

Not only that, but without a federal government to settle conflicts between states, there could be an escalation into war among them. The supporters of this idea had the hope that the people will have more power without the Constitution. The thought was that by creating a government “around the common citizen” those who are in office will have a “character of virtue” that America and its people could trust. Creating a government like so would ensure a protection of the American citizens’ rights and liberties.

Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people.

Madison furthers, the members of each branch should not be too dependent on the members of the other two branches in the determination of their salaries. The best security against a gradual concentration of power in any one branch is to provide constitutional safeguards that would make such concentration difficult. The constitutional rights of all must check one man's personal interests and ambitions. We may not like to admit that men abuse power, but the very need for government itself proves they do, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." Unfortunately, all men are imperfect, the rulers and the ruled.

In this paper I will show that with certain changes and clarifications to Locke's standards, the responsibilities of existing governments need not be allowed to shrink so drastically. This creates a tradeoff, however. Changing the standards to apply more closely to actual functioning governments has the consequence of making it more difficult to determine the legitimacy of those governments. Some of the clarity of Locke's theoretical model is lost in translating it to apply to actual instances of government. A cornerstone of Locke's political philosophy is the idea that a government holds power legitimately only through the consent of the governed.

Hobbes argues that a government has ancient liberty when its leadership can “resist or… invade other people” without being physically deterred (Hobbes XXI... ... middle of paper ... ... other men, how can the sovereign subdue his own appetites and rule in the interests of society? Accepting Hobbes’s depiction of human nature, the sovereign lacks the capacity to place genuinely the longevity of his people before his own desires. If the sovereign that cares for society’s survival above all else does not exist, how can society ensure its survival? Perhaps, society should allow a great deal of individual liberty and should adopt a democracy, a sovereignty of free people. Perhaps the societal norms that arise when free people interact naturally promote society’s survival.

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. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights.

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 gives us even more reason to believe a central government could create too much power and result in that of a monarchy (doc 2). Patrick Henry, a delegate from Virginia, also agrees that the rights of citizens are in danger. Including liberty of press, trial by jury, and the rights of conscience. This transition contradicts the basic rights that a sovereign state should possess. Are we going to declare that we are a monarchy soon?

“You took by force what you wanted, you are only as safe as your own intellect and physical strength.” So, Hobbes believed that the government should provide protection, well-being, and any other need a citizen might have. If there was no government, there was fear. Locke on the other hand believed that rulers and citizens’ rights should all be restricted by the laws of nature (right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property). He believed that a person should not be under political power without agreeing to the power itself. He said that the people should agree to be under political power, and should agree to government.