(Thomas Hobbes.)In political theory, there is a belief that government is only a necessary evil and little else. To claim that the power of government must be constrained is hardly justification to the aspects of history that support it - from feudal European kings to the notion of divine right to the whims of the aristocracy and to the fallacious, and even fictitious, wars that have plagued the past and current political systems. Nay, this is not a cry for anarchism, for it is because of anarchism that institutional government arose in the first place. (To clarify terms, we mean anarchism to be the absence of government, not the actions of people to bring down a negligible state of order. We believe that the civility retains the right for protest and to the fundamental change to any system, if necessary.)
Thomas Hobbes is one of the more famous figures of political theory; I remember in my first political science course here at MTSU how our class often discussed the contradicting philosophies of Hobbes and John Locke, another prominent English thinker. Hobbes, as many of us will recall, states that life was "a war of all against all" and "nasty, brutish and short." If there were a group of people - left in the state of nature - living under an apple tree, they would kill each over over the fallen apple in order to survive. As time goes on, the group will of course grow eventually into a community, and then after that into a society. It would be chaotic and colorless. Government, thereby, was a social contract made by the society to enforce order and justice. The people would give up some of the rights into a King, who would rule over them. As Solomon and Higgins say in their last sentence of Hobbes, "humanity of further protected by the idea of justice, but justice was the product of contractual society, not its presupposition."
Locke, on the other hand, thought differently. He again brings humans into the state of nature. In the state of nature, he supposes, life is tied in with the idea of justice. Using our own example, if we were to see a stranger fall and hurt himself, would be not have sympathy and help him up? (We must assume that we ourselves know pain and emotion. If we did not, what would it benefit to us to help him up?) Locke's philosophy of government states that the institution is compacted the the people in order to preserve the law and order that is already there.
Whether or not we agree with Hobbes and Locke, well, that is left to our own personal opinions, but allow me to discharge my own mind concerning the matter of government and its restraints in relevance to the people. Hobbes and Locke are both right in saying that all people are equal before the law (this functionally laid down the foundations of one of the judiciary's most basic principles.) They are also right that government is not in the nature of people - it is only the effect of the nature of people that government is brought forth. In our Constitution, the federal government is held back by a clause that states that all laws not explicitly or implicitly implied to be given to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people. Like the philosophers above, it is a generally accepted truth in our society that we can change government through protest, media, election, and the amending of the Constitution, but that we - the civility - must be cautious of our due responsibility to society. Let not the whims of people sway government. Though I have faith in fellow brethren, I am not afraid to say that most people - even myself - hardly know the functions of government enough to, excuse me, "run" it. With the sanctions of government to adhere to the people, Hobbes is perhaps right that the majority - the plurality - can sometimes be corrupt. This is how government, theorized by Hobbes and Locke to be social compacts made to preserve or instill justice, becomes itself unjust, and why, like Madison stated in his Federalist Papers, there must be a House that represents the people and a Senate that acts like a filter from the people.
In feudal Europe - this is just getting me started - government was even more corrupt. The King of England was not only king, but also the head of the Church. Consider the next example. King Henry of England inherited his reign while the country was still predominantly Catholic. Because his first wife did not bear him an heir, he sought a divorce from the Pope, who back then was the only figure to grant divorces. (I don't know the exact details, but either the Pope rejected his plea or the king became impatient with the Pope.) King Henry then broke away from the Church of Catholicism to join the Protestant denomination, which would allow him to divorce his wife and marry another. Does anyone else see the fallacy here? Though King Henry claimed his believed in God and thus should have adhered to the belief that divorce is wrong (it hurts, true. Try disclaiming that with me), he out-rightly sought more power to disobey God in front of the country (oops! Let's not say "disobey." Rather he broke away from the Catholic Church to join the Protestants, politically speaking), and all who disputed the marriage -not the supremacy - were beheaded.
And ummm... yes, Machiavelli. Very interesting dude. I'd like to talk much more on the subject above, but I have to run to class and can't talk about Machiavelli, but he basically broke away from Aristotle's philosophy of government and ethics being able to mix in together. Chyeah.
Thomas Hobbes is one of the more famous figures of political theory; I remember in my first political science course here at MTSU how our class often discussed the contradicting philosophies of Hobbes and John Locke, another prominent English thinker. Hobbes, as many of us will recall, states that life was "a war of all against all" and "nasty, brutish and short." If there were a group of people - left in the state of nature - living under an apple tree, they would kill each over over the fallen apple in order to survive. As time goes on, the group will of course grow eventually into a community, and then after that into a society. It would be chaotic and colorless. Government, thereby, was a social contract made by the society to enforce order and justice. The people would give up some of the rights into a King, who would rule over them. As Solomon and Higgins say in their last sentence of Hobbes, "humanity of further protected by the idea of justice, but justice was the product of contractual society, not its presupposition."
Locke, on the other hand, thought differently. He again brings humans into the state of nature. In the state of nature, he supposes, life is tied in with the idea of justice. Using our own example, if we were to see a stranger fall and hurt himself, would be not have sympathy and help him up? (We must assume that we ourselves know pain and emotion. If we did not, what would it benefit to us to help him up?) Locke's philosophy of government states that the institution is compacted the the people in order to preserve the law and order that is already there.
Whether or not we agree with Hobbes and Locke, well, that is left to our own personal opinions, but allow me to discharge my own mind concerning the matter of government and its restraints in relevance to the people. Hobbes and Locke are both right in saying that all people are equal before the law (this functionally laid down the foundations of one of the judiciary's most basic principles.) They are also right that government is not in the nature of people - it is only the effect of the nature of people that government is brought forth. In our Constitution, the federal government is held back by a clause that states that all laws not explicitly or implicitly implied to be given to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people. Like the philosophers above, it is a generally accepted truth in our society that we can change government through protest, media, election, and the amending of the Constitution, but that we - the civility - must be cautious of our due responsibility to society. Let not the whims of people sway government. Though I have faith in fellow brethren, I am not afraid to say that most people - even myself - hardly know the functions of government enough to, excuse me, "run" it. With the sanctions of government to adhere to the people, Hobbes is perhaps right that the majority - the plurality - can sometimes be corrupt. This is how government, theorized by Hobbes and Locke to be social compacts made to preserve or instill justice, becomes itself unjust, and why, like Madison stated in his Federalist Papers, there must be a House that represents the people and a Senate that acts like a filter from the people.
In feudal Europe - this is just getting me started - government was even more corrupt. The King of England was not only king, but also the head of the Church. Consider the next example. King Henry of England inherited his reign while the country was still predominantly Catholic. Because his first wife did not bear him an heir, he sought a divorce from the Pope, who back then was the only figure to grant divorces. (I don't know the exact details, but either the Pope rejected his plea or the king became impatient with the Pope.) King Henry then broke away from the Church of Catholicism to join the Protestant denomination, which would allow him to divorce his wife and marry another. Does anyone else see the fallacy here? Though King Henry claimed his believed in God and thus should have adhered to the belief that divorce is wrong (it hurts, true. Try disclaiming that with me), he out-rightly sought more power to disobey God in front of the country (oops! Let's not say "disobey." Rather he broke away from the Catholic Church to join the Protestants, politically speaking), and all who disputed the marriage -not the supremacy - were beheaded.
And ummm... yes, Machiavelli. Very interesting dude. I'd like to talk much more on the subject above, but I have to run to class and can't talk about Machiavelli, but he basically broke away from Aristotle's philosophy of government and ethics being able to mix in together. Chyeah.
It's also key to note that Machiavelli believed that warfare should be part of any relations between states. He saw war as a preparation of the mind that revolved around a Darwin-esque survival of the strongest mentality. Machiavelli also believed that politics were the very root of all evil in the world, they were all corrupt and manipulative; it sounds to me that he took those ideologies a little far. I like to believe that government intention is backed my selfless service, integrity,and honesty.
ReplyDeleteFrom a Hobbes-esque social outlook, we can conclude that the Government is merely a tool we as intelligent humans use to "unnaturally" alter the state of existence. As much as the idea of a government being there to promote good, the sad reality is that it's there to reduce evil- nearly all of our laws are about what not to do, not how to be better people.
ReplyDeleteWhat is ironic about Locke's writings, is that people used them as arguments against the British government, which we know started a brief period of anarchy during the American Revolution.
ReplyDelete