The state is obliged to protect their natural right to property, life and freedom. The more people, the wider the range of their responsibility to society. The State, therefore, does not have the absolute arbitrariness. The social contract involves, according to Locke, and the responsibility of the state to its citizens. 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.
A good government must work as a team, in agreement about policy and practice in order for it to function. Rousseau states that the “concentration of powers” only exists as the “consequence of an agreement” made by individuals (Rousseau 141). For a government to be strong the people must agree, and for them to agree there must be fair and equal rights for all citizens. A government must provide a foundation of support for its citizens. Roosevelt insists that everyone has the right of “equality… jobs… security… civil liberties” which should be provided and ensured by the government (Roosevelt 154).
While at the other end, Rousseau considered the people to be sovereign and it was their “general will” which led to the formation of a state where the individuals would part with their natural rights and in return, he would get civil liberties such as freedom, equality, assembly, etc. Furthermore, Rousseau believed that blind obedience should be given to “general will” on the belief that majority was
In Book 1, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main focus is directed at why people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their possessions. This then results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign we’re all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He disputes that no one will give up his or her freedom without getting something back. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.
He defines general will as alienation of each associates together, I completely agree by his social contract theory. What else a society wants the individuals are enjoying their rights, they are attaining mutual security and moral freedom, they are making their own government in which revolutions can take place very easily and most importantly it’s the collective will of the people where whatever the decision is made is according to everyone’s will and they just have to sacrifice a part of their natural freedom to attain mutual security and moral liberty. I mean these things are the primary demands of the good society and if these all are achieved by his way then why not, we just need to reach the destination journey doesn’t matter much. Obviously after reaching the height of the mountain why will I tell the distance I covered to reach there ill just tell the height which I climbed
Third, a democratic government is also elementary which is ruled by either one person who is being selected or elected among all the people or by their own – the citizens. Moreover, laws should not be dogmatically and should be equal to all. There are two kinds of liberalism in the modern society which is economic liberalism and social liberalism. The term economic liberalism means fundamental free trade in the market and private individual ownership of each association. Social liberalism states that all individual has the right to do one thing and should be supported unless the action is not a
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
To Rawls, a society is ultimately regulated by laws that bind everyone – however, these laws cannot be derived from particular individuals’ interests – we have a moral responsibility towards our fellow citizens to justify what will be best for the whole society. Rawls emphasises that we must be able to prove that these laws are just and fair to all. How do we go about deciding what the fair and just rules for social institutions are? Rawls proposes a decision making process. This decision making process is comprised of a thought experiment which Rawls refers to as the Original Position (OP), he uses this model to decide on the principles of justice that form the basic structure of society in a liberal constitutional democracy (Weinar,
Sjoberg believes that human rights were put in place to protect individuals against the abuses of corporate power. He was aware of the debate with regards to the origin of human rights but viewed it as a socially and historically produced phenomenon. Sjoberg sees human rights as unconditional and should not be dependent on one fulfilling one’s duties, although he does see on fulfilling one’s duties as a secondary concern. The following moral frameworks were discussed by Sjoberg, namely the supposed value neutrality (of positivism), utilitarianism, nation-state morality, and cultural relativism. In turn, Sjoberg believed that human rights were the best approach to address the abuse of bureaucratic organizations.
Democracy is a form of governance in which the supreme powers are vested in the hands of people and is exercised by them indirectly or directly through a system of representation usually involving periodic fair elections (http://www.zesn.org.zw/publications/publication_280.pdf). Most importantly, the rule of is needed to ensure that governors are held accountable through elections that are free and fair (Rose, R 2009) Democracy really means nothing or less than the rule of people,