Philosophy and Governing
Callista
Wilson
Mr.
Roddy
Global
Politics and Historical Contexts
22 February
2020
Perhaps
people develop governments for a wide number or reasons; however political
philosophers John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes had their own
interpretations. Locke believed that people should live by a social contract between
each other and with the government, and that people and leaders are innately interdependent.
This is plausible because governments ultimately rely on taxes and corporation
from their people to effectively operate, and individuals may need the government to support their education,
healthcare, safety, infrastructure, or human rights. Additionally, Rousseau believed that nations could be truly sovereign when governments allowed each person to have freedom and sovereignty over themselves. Meaning that governments should be representative, so that the voices of people are taken into account.
Although
Rousseau and Locke seemed to agree there should be a social contract to ensure
people are bettering a collective whole, and not hurting each other, Hobbes believed that an authoritarian,
or monarch based governing was the only way to keep people from seeking power
over each other, and prevent inconsistencies. In Hobbes’s 1651 book Leviathan,
he claims that all people are equal so they will naturally try to overpower
each other without one ultimate leader, which would be suboptimal for everyone.
He claims that people are equal because a physically weak person could overcome
anyone with the motivation. He also claims people are intellectually equal
because although they “acknowledge
many others to be more witty or more eloquent or more learned, [they will not]
believe there be many so wise as themselves, for they see their own wit at hand
and other men’s at a distance.” Here Hobbes claims that part of the reason why
people are intellectually equal is because they all value their own knowledge and
experiences more than the knowledge of others, and because everyone’s body of knowledge
is truly unique. To counter this, it’s difficult to accept that Hobbes can accurately
conclude how the minds of all people work, because people are empathetic, and
therefore do not always value their own knowledge as the most important.
Further, the legitimacy of any authoritarian rule is questionable, because if
the will of the people is not reflected by a ruler, then people may not to follow
the established laws, can could potentially revolt. For this reason, I agree with some of Hobbes’s
statements regarding equality, however, I do not believe people are as arrogant
as he says, or that any type of authoritarian government is just.
An
ideal governing system in my opinion would be one where laws are considered
extensions of what is morally right or wrong- not the opposite way around- and
the sovereignty of the government is based on their inclusion of the will of
the people, as well as strong consideration for those who are oppressed in their
policies. Additionally, the legitimacy of governments should not only be
based on their relationship with the people they represent, but it should
also be based on their stance in foreign affairs, and there contributions towards
working for the best interests of peace, people’s rights, and people's protection across the global. Ultimately, governments, and the exchange of any power between people in general needs to be based on trust, and altruistic guidelines. When the power vested in any government somehow becomes grasped by individuals who are not representing their people, or not acting with honor towards other nations, then corruption can occur. In the future, I hope that leaders can learn the greater negative consequences of acting in their own self-interests, and that over time the trust between people, their governments, and foreign powers can be solidified.
References
Comments