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.
Ultimately, Nineteen Eighty Four has made me realize the immense power that governments have to control their people. I believe this is the case because as a civilization, we are dependent on our government. If it were to turn on us, we would be left like lost vulnerable children separated from their parents. We would have no direction, no security and no hope. Even though this is the harsh truth I have also learnt that this overdependence and vulnerability can be avoided by the promotion of self-expression and individuality.
His main two ideas behind his essay, Wealth are Social Darwinism and Utilitarianism. In Carneige’s time, the world was at a difficult time, it was on the verge of industrial revolution. My main issue with Carneige’s proposal is his stance on individuality, he opposes Thoreau’s belief entirely on each person is their own person. “While the law may be hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it ensures survival of the fittest in every department.” (p.226) One of his concerns was the gap between rich and poor and that the tension would lead to violence. He proposes that an inheritance tax be placed on the rich, to administer the wealth over the community.
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).
They also believe that since the government is established by the people that it is up to the people to hold the government responsible to the people for any treasons acts against the people and since the King sees himself above all who he rules and free from reproach, that for the safety, happiness and prosperity of the people, the states must separate themselves from Britain. The people argue that he king has no concern for the safety of the people he has been entrusted to rule over. Instead he himself plots against their safety and prosperity, taking for himself all that he desires and achieving what he wants by acts that are cruel, illegal and malicious. That the king does not bother himself with the rights of his people, their treatment or the fact that his army rapes, pillages and kills those they are supposed to be protectin... ... middle of paper ... ...sed to be for the benefit of that person, the president sets a fine for not covering themselves. Even though his intention are masked to be for the good of the people it is unethical and just another way of taxing the people.
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.
Inequality arose from laws created to enforce the rights of property owners,... ... middle of paper ... ...g yourself to be free. When a person disobeys the Sovereign they are disobeying themselves. Compared to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau represents the most liberal views. Hobbes, being the most conservative of the three, believes the state of nature to be in a state of war, without morality and constantly in fear but essentially equal. “Life is nasty, brutish, and short... a condition of war of everyone against everyone” said Hobbes.
Marx argues against social classes, the sense of nationality and the idea that private property lead to social power and the bourgeois dominance in society. They had all the control. Bastiat believed that all people had a God given right to defend themselves, their property, and their liberties. He believed that law was necessary, but that it should be fair and consistent to all of the individuals in a society, no matter their economic stature. He argued that law was changing, and that it was actually going against what it was designed to uphold in the first place.
Rousseau and Totalitarianism Rousseau clearly promotes totalitarianism in The Social Contract, and hints at it in a few passages from his Second Discourse. He desperately attempts to lay down a form of government that eliminates any chance for the people to be victims. Rousseau specifically shows us the faults in the other types of government and tries to prevent them in his ideas. He wants to create a political situation where people have as much sovereignty as possible. In order to reduce the chance of victimhood among the peoples there must be equality between them all.
If anything, the only “religion” he would approve of is that which holds the sanctity of the social contract. If anyone disagreed or disobeyed these laws, they would be “forced to be free,” meaning that residents of the state must follow the laws or be exiled. He compares such a direct democracy to Geneva. However, if the population decided that they don’t care about such matters, then the government is dissolved. Thus, in this view all political power, without separation, rests in the hands... ... middle of paper ... ...tablishing a well-ordered society, which concerns each individual’s comprehensive doctrine.