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. Basically Montesquieu thought that in order to get out of an absolute monarchy and to govern yourself; you must protect the rights of your country and stop the destruction of your country from the law. He thought that human beings could solve society's problems by using their ability to reason. Montesquieu thought that people should take a direct part in their government and not follow what a king or dictator says. That the people living in the country should decide what laws they live by and what there freedoms are.
Rousseau’s theory gives a generalization of what society is like today; it is somewhat representative of a republican/democratic society with how laws are regulated. The general will could be considered to be the Democratic Party because the making of laws relies on the people and the government is somewhat less inclusive; they only pass the law. We are born with freedom and equality, but these slowly become corrupted based on who is in power. Also, the reliance that the people have on the government is similar because if the government fails the people, then they have the right to choose a different president or rebel. Hobbes suggests that the people should give up all of their rights to the government and submit to them and to me this is like a dictatorship.
Therefore, people must be governed by their own consent, and they must have the ability to dissolve a government that abuses its power. By believing in the rights of the people rather than a collective will, Locke chooses to embrace a system that can last generations. In comparison to Hobbes’ system, Locke’s ideal society accounts for the fact that lack of flexibility in any sort of governing body is often tantamount to disaster. An example of this can be seen in the Edward James Olmos film, American Me, in which the main character Montoya Santana becomes the leader of a gang while in prison. When Santana later wishes to leave the gang’s leadership, he is murdered.
The reason this is because no one has any connection to the other, everyone has the right to everything, just to satisfy his or her appetites. There is no rational rule to resolve conflict, in order to get around this you have to get an agreement, thus the need for a social contact. The social contract is how governments are legitimated, or given the political right to rule. The social contract is the establishment of a sovereigns right to rule over subjects, you have to give up your right to everything except the right to life, that's the only thing you retain when you make an agreement with other subjects. The sovereign is above the social contract; it's not a party to it, but an enforcer of the rules that it applies.
He goes on to point out that the world would only be chaotic if there aren’t absolute monarchs. Hobbes believes man must establish the Leviathan by making a social contract and only then will the world run ideally. He considers the state of nature like the human body; the government being the head and the citizens being the body. The head is in absolute control but the body can still create harm on itself and the head but only if the head allows it. The people (the body) must give consent to the government to have absolute rule.
The proper use and limits of governmental power have different implications for each theorist that we have studied. Some see its power as all-encompassing, while others see it as more narrow, controlled and regulated. For this essay, I chose to examine the philosophies of the theorists with whom I disagree with the least: Rousseau, Locke, and Rawls. One can always recall Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous line: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This sentence expressed his opposition to the idea that individual should be forced to give up their natural rights to a king. His idea of political power is that which comes from a social contract, and is entered into by participants who desire protection of life, liberty, and property, while still maintaining a good amount of freedom.
He believed that the people should be the basis of the government and that the power of the government is derived from the people’s feelings towards it. In the social contract, the people can revolt against an ineffective government, and it is the people who decide when a government is not longer acting in the best interests of its people. The only rights that people surrender are those that prevent the enforcement of the law of nature, all other rights remain intact. Since the issue in the state of nature was unintended biases that originated from the lack of reason, Locke suggests the idea of a legislator to act as the supreme power that represents the general good of the commonwealth, and the executive, that is the supreme power by default in the absence of the legislator, but is bound by a constitution. Unbiased judges and courts would then be responsible for punishing the transgressors of the natural law of the people, instead of potentially prejudice citizens.
Before looking at what type of Government is best, it’s important to know about human nature because gives us an idea of the type of people, who would have the power in Government. Human nature deals with the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and act, which humans tend to have naturally, without any influence from the culture around them. Between both of them, Hobbes was the one that had a negative view of human nature. He believed that people were born to be bad and cruel and would act on behalf of their own best interests, like “Every man for himself” and that society could not exist exce... ... middle of paper ... ...at should the people do? With Rebellion against the Government that is abusive to the people.
By giving up all rights to self-governance to the sovereign, all individuals are reduced to automatons that act on the will of the state. In my opinion, that is too extreme. We should answer the question of the amount of authority to give up instead of doing what Hobbes proposed – which is to give it up entirely. In terms of collective utility, this theory still does not really sit well. Hobbes’ theory of the Alienation Social Contract Theory can possibly result in a state where many are oppressed with no power to fight back, much like the modern dictatorship (just that the dictator are the rules set by the state).
The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr... ... middle of paper ... ... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (?? )the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government.