Philosophers and Government - Sarah Seeliger
Philosophers and Government
Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes all have different views on why people form governments as well as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and interdependence.
Locke believed that people form a government because they want to preserve their property. To quote Locke specifically: "The great chief and end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property..." (Locke 2). As far as sovereignty goes, Locke believed that the government has the power to execute the "State of Nature", which I assume is the law, to punish criminals in a way that is relative to and appropriate for the crime that they committed. Locke also says that the law would be pointless if the government wasn't allowed to execute it to quote "preserve the innocent and restrain the offenders" (Locke 1). Before telling us what the government and the common person can use the law for, he tells us what the law doesn't allow. The State of Nature doesn't allow the government or people to destroy themselves or anything living that they own. It also doesn't allow people to harm others. In regards to power, Locke says that no single person has more power than another and that "... all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal.." (Locke 1). As far as legitimacy is concerned, Locke makes the claim that a legitimate government is based on the idea of separation of power. The power he focuses on is the legislative power, which he claims to be supreme (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Rousseau states that people form the government because it grants them civil freedom as well as the ability to live in a community. As far as sovereignty goes, Rousseau states that the government was not sovereign and that it could not speak for the general will, but it still took care of day-to-day business. In terms of interdependence, Rousseau believed that what he called "the sovereign", which was the people acting collectively, were mainly dependent on and committed to each other, but that didn't mean that the society or the people in it couldn't be dependent on other states. There are two quotes in the reading that represent this, the first one being: "This formula shows that the act of association includes a reciprocal commitment between the public and private individuals and that each individual, contracting, as it were, with himself, finds himself under a twofold commitment, namely, as a member of the sovereign towards private individuals..." (Rousseau 3). The second quote that represents this idea is this: "This does not mean that the whole body cannot perfectly well commit itself to another body with respect to things that do not infringe on this contract" (Rousseau 4). I think that these things above kind of relate to legitimacy and power in the sense that the government has power over the sovereign and that a government is legitimate if it follows the social contract that Rousseau has written.
Hobbes says that the reason the government is created is that without it, people are in a constant state of war because they want to be more powerful than each other, and he says that the government has the power to create laws and that there are no laws without government. Concerning sovereignty, Hobbes makes the claim that kings/rulers have sovereign authority and that they "are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another..." (Hobbes). The only thing that I can find that I think is Hobbes talking about legitimacy is that he claims that governments have common law, which I guess is something he thinks makes them legitimate, and as far as power goes, Hobbes believes that if a government can keep the people peaceful then it's powerful.
I personally don't agree with these theories because I feel like they each only give the government one purpose, which to me is too simplistic. I think that the reason the government is created is a combination of keeping peace, giving civil freedom, and preserving property. If I had to pick a theory I agree with the most, it would be Locke's because although I think it's too simple, I think that he's right in saying that the government has the power to punish criminals. As far as Rousseau goes, I disagree with it not only because of the simplicity but also because of his views on human value. He says that humans are more valuable as a collective, which I don't think is true. Concerning Hobbes, I don't think humans are at war with each other as much as he says, although there is still war. I personally would establish a government by having a set of laws that was reasonable and fair, and I would set it up as a democracy so that people would be allowed to vote for people they want to represent them. I would also make sure there were ways to keep peace in society, and that crime was punished appropriately.
Other Websites I used (to help with understanding)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#SepPowDisGov
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/section1/
Locke believed that people form a government because they want to preserve their property. To quote Locke specifically: "The great chief and end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property..." (Locke 2). As far as sovereignty goes, Locke believed that the government has the power to execute the "State of Nature", which I assume is the law, to punish criminals in a way that is relative to and appropriate for the crime that they committed. Locke also says that the law would be pointless if the government wasn't allowed to execute it to quote "preserve the innocent and restrain the offenders" (Locke 1). Before telling us what the government and the common person can use the law for, he tells us what the law doesn't allow. The State of Nature doesn't allow the government or people to destroy themselves or anything living that they own. It also doesn't allow people to harm others. In regards to power, Locke says that no single person has more power than another and that "... all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal.." (Locke 1). As far as legitimacy is concerned, Locke makes the claim that a legitimate government is based on the idea of separation of power. The power he focuses on is the legislative power, which he claims to be supreme (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Rousseau states that people form the government because it grants them civil freedom as well as the ability to live in a community. As far as sovereignty goes, Rousseau states that the government was not sovereign and that it could not speak for the general will, but it still took care of day-to-day business. In terms of interdependence, Rousseau believed that what he called "the sovereign", which was the people acting collectively, were mainly dependent on and committed to each other, but that didn't mean that the society or the people in it couldn't be dependent on other states. There are two quotes in the reading that represent this, the first one being: "This formula shows that the act of association includes a reciprocal commitment between the public and private individuals and that each individual, contracting, as it were, with himself, finds himself under a twofold commitment, namely, as a member of the sovereign towards private individuals..." (Rousseau 3). The second quote that represents this idea is this: "This does not mean that the whole body cannot perfectly well commit itself to another body with respect to things that do not infringe on this contract" (Rousseau 4). I think that these things above kind of relate to legitimacy and power in the sense that the government has power over the sovereign and that a government is legitimate if it follows the social contract that Rousseau has written.
Hobbes says that the reason the government is created is that without it, people are in a constant state of war because they want to be more powerful than each other, and he says that the government has the power to create laws and that there are no laws without government. Concerning sovereignty, Hobbes makes the claim that kings/rulers have sovereign authority and that they "are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another..." (Hobbes). The only thing that I can find that I think is Hobbes talking about legitimacy is that he claims that governments have common law, which I guess is something he thinks makes them legitimate, and as far as power goes, Hobbes believes that if a government can keep the people peaceful then it's powerful.
I personally don't agree with these theories because I feel like they each only give the government one purpose, which to me is too simplistic. I think that the reason the government is created is a combination of keeping peace, giving civil freedom, and preserving property. If I had to pick a theory I agree with the most, it would be Locke's because although I think it's too simple, I think that he's right in saying that the government has the power to punish criminals. As far as Rousseau goes, I disagree with it not only because of the simplicity but also because of his views on human value. He says that humans are more valuable as a collective, which I don't think is true. Concerning Hobbes, I don't think humans are at war with each other as much as he says, although there is still war. I personally would establish a government by having a set of laws that was reasonable and fair, and I would set it up as a democracy so that people would be allowed to vote for people they want to represent them. I would also make sure there were ways to keep peace in society, and that crime was punished appropriately.
Other Websites I used (to help with understanding)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#SepPowDisGov
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/section1/
Comments