I understand a theory of political legitimacy to give an account of the justice of political arrangements. (3) I understand a theory of political obligation to give an account of why and under what conditions, citizens are morally required to obey the rules constituting those arrangements. The social contract tradition offers us hypothetical consent theories of both political obligation and political legitimacy, frequently neglecting to distinguish the two ideas. Likewise, the common objection to hypothetical consent theories — that hypothetical contracts do not bind — ... ... middle of paper ... ...vice of representation". (14) For an argument that no contractual agreement on the two principles of justice occurs in the original position and that therefore the two principles are not justified by a contract, see Jean Hampton, "Contracts and Choices: Does Rawls Have a Social Contract Theory?"
It shall be shown that although Marx's conception of the state is just an adaptation of Hegel's, the application of that conception in relation to society is more original. The second part of the question demands an examination into the defensibility of Marx's state theory. The fact that Marx never clarifies his theory gives modern Marxists a great deal of leeway in adapting Marxist theory to counter its critics. Several different ways of defending Marxist theory will be set out below. In his Philosophy of Right, Hegel makes the important and influential distinction between Civil Society and the Political State.
Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories. Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func... ... middle of paper ... ...o self-preservation, and a lack of morals coupled with an inability to establish ownership of property will eventually lead to a state of war.
He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people. He departs from non-realist theorists when he argues that morality has no place in measuring or comparing states with one another: “Here no other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.” Realists’ tenets, fundamentally, are that states should act in their self-interest and that states in the world have to focus on their survival. Realists hold that we live in an anarchic system, and as such... ... middle of paper ... ...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability.
In order to provide knowledge on how communism was unable to provide the benefits promised you must first know what communism is. Communism is “an ideology that seeks to create human equality by eliminating private property & market forces” (Karl Marx). So abolishing the personal ability to act freely will create fairness between one another. Freedom is “an individual’s ability to act independently without fear of restriction or punishment by the state or other individuals or groups in society” (O’Neil). The rights given to you in the U.S. constitution are an example of this.
Any claim that denies the legitimacy of such responsibilities and powers is a claim in favour of anarchy. Thus, the claim taxation is theft has the inferential meaning that government is illegitimate. Theft is conceptually reliant on social convention and legal definition, and so without government or social obligation, the concept of theft is void. Governmental power is entrusted in the State by the people it represents, and government policy in any democratic state is intended to represent public interests . As taxation is within government policy, and such policies represent the will of the people, taxation is therefore, the will of the people.
Political correctness, as applied in today’s society, seeks to control freedom of speech and poses a true danger to a free society. The First Amendment’s focus is the protection of our right to express our thoughts through speech, whether written or verbal. By PC’s intrinsic infringement on these rights, it has become a subtle tool used for dismantling freedom of speech and manipulating the flow of information to the masses. The similarities between political correctness and Marxism are nearly endless. Marxism bred political correctness; therefore, its roots lie in a version of Marxist ideology, derived from the Frankfurt School, which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.
59-64).I think, the social contract is not based on any actual consent, but more so one’s voluntary decision to join said state. The social contract then represents logic, which is compos... ... middle of paper ... ...There are several ways that the state can be governed by. There are a ways to which it could be changed and created by. However, the people’s individual freedoms are sacrificed for the civil liberties in interest for the greater good of the state.
Locke argued that government is legitimate, but only in so far as it acts within the limits of this implied contract. According to him, authorization was meaningless, except that it gave people reason to believe that the use of force is just. Karl Marx looked at how capitalism alienated humanity by making work a mere means of individual existence. The same applies to social relations; in reality people are not free ‟ individuals anymore than we are organs or functions of society; we are determined by society, possibly irrationally, but nevertheless definitely.” Our natural ability (or inability) is largely a product of socialization and cultural adherence, as many new socializations theories argue. Overall, all four theorists believed equality benefits human nature but most of their arguments gave substantial weight to Marx’s theory concerning human nature.
The logic behind the story could be applied more generally to any number of grievances against government. Thoreau seeks to define in which cases it is justified to resist government, and in which cases the injustice is "part of the necessary friction of the machine of government." Most importantly, Thoreau rejects the criterion of expediency used by Paley to judge the necessity of rebellion at a given moment in history. He asserts the primacy of individual conscience over collective pragmatism. The means of resistance advocated and practiced by Thoreau are nonviolent.