Marx’s first criticisms are towards the concept of liberal democracy as defined by John Stuart Mill. Mill describes liberal democracy as a society in which the government promotes the common good of the citizens by recognizing the natural right of private property, the tendency towards market economies, and the equality in social and economic opportunities as well as in personal and civic liberties. (Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty: Chapter 1.”). Marx believed instead that liberal democracy does not represent the best type of government since it does not correspond to a natural order but rather reflects a very human abstract view of society.
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.
Jean Jacques Rousseau was born on 28 June 1712 in Geneva and died on 2 July 1778 In France. He was a French Philosopher and a writer. Rousseau prefer direct democracy as the best form of government. Laws are system of rules that are created and enforced by governmental institutions to regulate people’s behavior so that they will not take advantage and harm others or even themselves. Rousseau claims that “Man is essentially good in the state of nature” and complete freedom can only be achieved when man is not connected with the society.
The anarchist’s challenge states that there is no explicit need for governmental organization and the social contract is limiting individuals from reaching pure freedom. Anarchy literally translates to “without government.” Theorists like William Godwin and Max Striner argued that the individual is sovereign. Their emphasis is on complete autonomy of the individual, rather than the State of Society; this distinguished them from later anarchist thinkers, such as Michael Bakunin and George Woodcock (Carter, 1971). These Anarchist theorists truly believe that anarchy is the best option for people, and it is only without government that people can be free. Anarchists fundamentally object to the notion of a social contract and promote the freedom of the individual.
James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules. He further comments that the full unrestricted right to property, that is, to do whatever we can provided that there is no violation of other people’s rights, will finally lead to some reduction of liberty, mainly for the people who does not have property and have to rely on the assistance of others. Morever, Nozick’s comparison of income tax to forced labour has been attached by a number of critics who question the legitimacy of treating the two as remotely equivalent. Nozick’s reliance on Locke’s theory of individual property may be wrong. Locke argues that we acquire ownership over a thing by mixing our labour with in, but I am wonder whether or not it can apply to natural resources.
The essay will then conclude by linking these areas to the question of whether Rousseau’s Du Contrat Social signals the advent of modern democratic republicanism or a could serve to suppress individual human freedom and the importance of remembering the context of when Rousseau’s Du Contrat Social was written. Freedom according to Rousseau Although Rousseau believes that men did indeed have natural human freedom, he does not believe that men can simply regain their ‘natural freedom’. The reason for this remains unexplained in ‘Du Contrat Social’. However Rousseau believes they must “voluntarily agree to the creation of a social order, which though not ‘natural’ is, or has become, indispensable” (Keens- Soper, 1988, p.175). Rousseau’s aim in creating Du Contrat Social was not to allow men to regain their natural freedom, his aim was to “ find a form of association which will defend the person and
For Hobbes, social contract is an inevitable process because men need a central power for self-preservation (Hobbes 39). He cannot protect himself from outside dangers; therefore, he needs sovereign power for survival. Nevertheless, for Rousseau, social contract is needed, but it unavoidably creates inequality as well as peace and order. If men were more just and fair in his actions, social contract would be more beneficial to his life. In his natural state, men was more caring and cooperative, but with social contract, he is more individualistic and greedy (Bondanella 16).
Kierkegaard 's view of people having no character is incorrect, at best it’s flawed. In the Present Age his critique “no character and neither has abstract intelligence”, is due to passionless people having no values. Ambiguity arrives when Kierkegaard 's equates ‘being carried away’ to folly. Kierkegaard identifies character as something that is fixed ‘engraved’ and is largely based on people having global character traits that are influenced by society and one 's environment. My argument revolves around a particular question: Why is there common ambivalence regarding character?
Locke believes that people give up their natural freedoms through that “consent” to enter into civil society by the social contract for their safety, liberty, and estate; all of which Locke considers as property. Indeed, there are shortcomings to the state of nature as presented by Locke. All of which can be fixed through the social contract and the formation of civil society. As presented by the English philosopher, there are three main “absences” in the state of nature, which civil society promises: “An established, settled, known
Firstly Helevictus believe that there is one system, morality and freedom. He argues that there is one system and one rule. He said the man “seek pleasure and avoid pain”, that is how we are. We are selfish being. Man is not good but we can merely be changed by society that we live in.