Even if we assume, however, that Hobbes’ state of nature is true, it still would not justify obeying a tyrannical government. Having to live under a tyrannical government that does not protect one’s rights is in no way better than having to compete with other people for survival. In competing with other people, at least everyone is on equal footing. However, when competing against a government, then there is a power imbalance and the government can use its power to oppress the people. Therefore, the people should have the right to rebel against such a government.
According to John Locke, an effective government must respect its people’s natural rights, which he argues is necessary because he believes that people have the ability to reason and are inherently good to govern themselves. Because the boys fail to implement this key governing component, they face the consequence of complete chaos and anarchy, which leads to multiple deaths. In John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, he mentions the idea that “Governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.” [Locke]. Since he says that “governments exist by the consent of the people”, he is saying that
Rousseau’s writings On the Social Contract critiques many aspects of modern society, including the use of representatives in most governments. With this critique, Rousseau attempts to persuade the readers that having a representative form of government is tantamount to being enslaved. This begs the question, is modern society wrong to use representative forms of governments or is Rousseau being courted by a utopian visage? Rousseau is persuasive in his arguments, however the impracticality of populaces sans representatives is a firm counterbalance. Rousseau’s main argument against the use of representatives in the political sphere is that utilising representatives thwarts any attempt at truly reaching the general will of the citizens.
A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are to civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this people shouldn 't be up to someone 's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected.
The idea of civil disobedience is to make yourself more “free” by purposely disobeying the government, who Thoreau believes, “is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it,” (Thoreau, On the duty of civil disobedience 3). From this quote, we can see Thoreau believes by doing these acts of disobedience the individual will become one with itself, and be able to break free of society’s grip. However, Thoreau fails to grasp the benefits of being a part of a society, which include receiving aid from the government if you are struggling, having low cost healthcare, and being active with others. These things can be essential to life. As in a transcendental utopian society, there is no way to seek out medical help, as you are out by yourself, with whatever you need as a necessity.
The sovereign keeps the people safe but, removes almost unlimited power in exchange. Anything that weakest monarchy will lead to anarchy to the S.O.N and to war. The sovereign cannot take the lives of citizens without good reason. We need to leave the state of nature because it's dangerous and our one right is in the grave
When they both decide to go against the government, it is solely because both think that government prevents the Transcendentalist lifestyle. This lifestyle, means that one is exempt from taxes or any other enforced laws and regulations, as a Transcendentalist disagrees with the very core of the state. So, under the guise of moral responsibility, civil disobedience is a way to act for their own personal gain. McCandless has a distaste for government, having strong views on various politicians, many of which he dislikes. His political leanings are reminiscent of Thoreau’s essay ‘On Duty of Civil Disobedience’, and can be summed up with, “ ‘I heartily accept the motto - ‘That
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government.
“The Condition of Man Is a Condition of War” stated that Hobbes portrayed humans as rational thinkers who sought to obtain power and acted with self-interest. He saw the state of nature without a sovereign as a “state of war,” where the people would live in constant fear and chaos. To prevent this state of fear, there must have been an agreement that the sovereign would protect his citizens and their natural rights if they agreed to lay down their weapons and give up their individual freedoms (“Condition of Man”). “For Hobbes, a social contract bestowing indivisible authority to a sovereign was a necessary evil to avoid the cruel fate that awaited man if a strong power could not keep the destructive impulses of individuals in check” (“Condition of Man”). Thomas Hobbes did not have faith in the good of mankind, and because of this, he believed the citizens should give absolute control of the state to one