If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes. Contrastingly, Rawls views democracy as the only way a state can realise justice. Citizens all need a say in how they live their lives and this improves their political lives in the state. Hobbes’ sovereign rule is flawed as he believes each citizen will give up rights and obey a single ruler who has the final say in all decisions. This type of society will eventually crumble, be it by revolution or distrust in the sovereign’s ability; displaying the total failure of law and order while oppressed citizens rise and
Contemporary of the first British revolution that led to the fall of Charles I, Hobbes strongly believes that the civil war was due to the division of power between the King and the Parliament. Thus, his vision of power and sovereignty is not objective, but influenced by his own experience. To him, only a single authority which can control the governmental powers would be able to achieve
Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society. On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.
According to him, the government has an obligation to serve the people, by protecting their life, liberty and property. At the same time, and also mentioned some limitations on the powers of the government. He was in the favor of a representative government and also in the rule of law. Lots insisted that in case the government fails to protect the rights of the individuals, then the people should rise in revolt. According to Locke, the main principles of his philosophy have been expressed in his work titled, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding that was written by him in 1690.
Vaclav Havel wrote his essay “The power of the powerless” as a description and critique of the totalitarian communist government and its system. He states that Communism is different to the other types of dictatorship as it is alike a “secularized religion” rather than the usual dictatorship, which do not have any social of historical background and come to power just by the military power. He also described how the individuals are responsible for getting under the autocratic regime due to their agreement to live in a society of consumers, where the supplier is the government, expecting everyone to go with the strict order of life. In case those individuals decide to participate in that and “live within a lie”, they are bounded with the communism. And this “living within a lie” is the initial rule of the Communist system’s power.
Thomas Hobbes is a political philosophy from the age of enlightenment. He is considered the founder of modern political philosophy. The work that he is most known for is Leviathan. This work was completed in 1651, and in it he discusses his view on the role of government in human lives based on his view of human behavior. Through this thought process, Hobbes comes to the conclusion that if humans seek peace, forfeiting your rights to a ruler, and keeping covenants, society will be taken out of a “state of nature.” This belief though does not escape the criticism of an unfair ruler though.
These ideas includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (natural rights); the protection that is provided by the government for these rights; and the altering or abolishment of government if it fails to provide and protect the rights of the people. There may also be some differentiating ideas regarding these two sources. An example of this may be that, even though Jefferson and Locke agreed that the people should be able to overthrow the government if their rights were encroached upon, Hobbes believed that this would lead to a state of nature, which wouldn’t end greatly. The first way that the Declaration of Independence and
Therefore, physical and economic insecurity justify revolution in Hobbes’ Commonwealth, which creates inconsitency in Hobbes arguement. Revolution is permitted in Hobbes’ Commonwealth, but only if a majority of citizens are not protected by the sovereign. Security justifies the Commonwealth, thus the Commonwealth is justified by general security. The foundation of Hobbes’ argument relies on that “during the time men live without a common power … they are in… war” (CITATION PAGE 82), and that it is a natural right for a man to work for “the preservation of… his own life” (CITATION PAGE 84). Because of this, it is logical for persons to leave the state of nature by forming a Commonwealth, in which they all simultaneously sacrifice their rights to the same entity
If the state does not fulfill its duty to the people, if it violates the freedom of the people, the people have the right to fight against the state. Locke is often referred to among the main theorists of the democratic polity. His ideal - British constitutional monarchy, in which embodied the balance of interests of the individual and the state is the king, the House of Lords and the House of
Therefore, this lack of sovereignty can lead to people destroying each other. Hobbes also believes that if people start to move out of the state of nature, monarchy would be their best option. He defends this view by saying that a monarchical system of governance ensures the safety of the system and its subjects. Locke, on the other hand, has a different state of nature in mind. He argues that the state of nature must be controlled by laws that restrict humans from harming each other.