The people (the body) must give consent to the government to have absolute rule. I believe that Thomas Hobbes’ view on how society should be run is far too ambitious and paves way for tyranny and overwhelms the individual. The idea that the citizens are the body and the government is the head is not unrealistic, in fact the portal or body politics is brilliant but he fails to account for the individual. I believe that there is no way man can exist without government. I believe that even in our natural state we assert some type of government.
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.
Accordingly, there is danger in having an all-powerful state because personal freedoms are lost. More so, there is power in having knowledge that others do not possess because it is a gateway for the government to control the public if scientific and technological advances are been made. As mentioned before, governments prosper when there is stability and commodification is way of the government achieving that although it does alter human behavior. On the other hand, some would argue that modern society is based on democracy and a controlled state as depicted in Brave New World is impossible to occur but there are indicators in society today that serve as a resemblance. Brave New World emphasizes that the dangers of an all-powerful state, power of knowledge, and commodification are detrimental to modern society.
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.
It also can use democracy’s voting system to promote their interest instead of the common good. Besides, religious beliefs and moralities cannot be relied on to regulate human from doing harm. Therefore, Madison believes a republic government is better than pure democracy for the controlling mischiefs of majority faction. Another reason is since people have different faculties from the very beginning, the government should be held by people who possess more wisdom and patriotism. They will have better skill to advance the public good and run the government.
Many throughout history shared Thoreau’s opinion, especially those who were on the receiving end of the government’s unjust practices. Thoreau felt that a better government was needed and I would argue, that his words are still relevant today. There is always room for the government to improve. Thoreau wanted a government that didn’t just look to the interests of the powerful majority, one in which individuals with consciences lead, instead of a collective power making decisions for the individuals. The people have the right to resist a government that isn’t serving them properly or is treating them unjustly, or is using their funding for immoral causes; in fact, it is the people’s duty to do so, for only through civil disobedience can the people simulate change.
On the surface it may seem a very noble idea to pursue but it can also impl... ... middle of paper ... ...ideal , but it is the right form of government for people who have not reached a certain level of development. Locke believes that absolute monarchy is unfit for civil society because property is not safe under it and can be taken at the monarch’s whim. It is strange how Mill only talks in terms of two extreme forms of government representative and despotism , and does not tells a way from moving from despotism to government. However though his model of government is not bereft with defects it does provide some extremely fine framework and is more forward looking than Locke’s model in which the government doesnot aspires any intellectual or political thought but only maintains the status quo. In conlclusion, Mill’s notions of the government’s paternal role is praiseworthy but if looked at more closely it can create a lot of problems which Mill maybe overlooked.
It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” (Thoreau, lines 12-16) He states that the American government derives its power from the majority, not the strongest group, and not necessarily the most moral. Thoreau wants us to believe that we the people should follow what we think to be ethically just, not what the government and the majority force upon us. In my opinion, I agree with Thoreau in the aspect that we need a more improved form of government, however I disagree with the type of government that Thoreau wishes for. He believes we work better without restraint and that we must command our individual respect, but I heartily argue the opposite; a society must have order and an infrastructure, we need a system to oversee the problems that we cannot solve as humans with individual mindsets.
In the state of nature, both Hobbes and Locke agree that there is no legitimate form of government. Hobbes believed that it was every man for himself, while Locke thought that the law of nature bound men and prevented an uncontrollable state like Hobbes’; “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license” (170). Locke believes that the state of nature has a law of nature. This law of reason governs the people to understand that just because men are all equal and independent, does not mean that
Instead, government needs to focus on providing for citizens and working for their best interests, not the bottom-line. It needs to be acknowledged that there is no “best practice” because a perfect government does not exist. Citizens are not customers, government is not a business, it is intended to protect people from the dangers they are unaware of and the harmful practices of others. Government is meant to provide for people, with the understanding that if they fail the people have the right to choose a stronger government. Governments need to protect citizens from negative externalities that arise regardless of the culprit.