Political theory Essays

Political theory Essays Political theory Essay Political theory Essay Anthony Spencer Professor Robinson Political Theory Thought Piece three For a human to lead a truly free life, they must dissolve all ties to civil and social existence and live as an individual. Once you enter into society you give up your right to freedom in exchange for protection from the sovereign state. In doing so you have chosen to be bound by society and its government. That interference in the individuals day-to-day life should be limited in an ideal state, for too much would be a determent to society. The correct proportion of government to freedom is the iggest obstacle to human liberty aside from the individuals themselves. When people elect to come together and create a sovereign state they are giving up their right to act solely as an individual. It is this entrance into the state that is cause for empathy and morality between citizens of the state. In exchange for entering into society the individual is bound, but only by what will cause its death. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a modern thinker who brought the theory of the social contract and the state of nature with him. The state of nature is the hypothetical, prehistoric place nd time where human beings live uncorrupted by society. The most crucial characteristic of the state of nature is that the citizens have complete physical freedom and are at liberty to essentially do as they wish. Rousseaus principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society. By entering into society, we place restraints on our behavior, which make it possible to live in a community. The state of nature is what he refers to as the state when people are truly free. Rousseau strips away all the ideals that centuries of evelopment have imposed on the true nature of man. He comes to the conclusion that many of the ideas we take for granted, such as property, law, and moral inequality; actually have no basis in nature. For Rousseau, modern society generally compares unfavorably to the state of nature. Rousseau is the thinker that imposes on humanity the necessity of a sovereign state, and the morality of thinking that we gain with it. After a state is formed the next most important thing is to ensure the individuals rights within the state, these pretenses can be challenged if the overnments power is too absolute. It is another thinker, John Stuart Mill, who attempts to solve the issue of government becoming too powerful. For Mill government has become too much when it coerces of limits anyones expression of their opinion. Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only a sole individual holds a particular opinion, mankind is not Justified in silencing him. Silencing such opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation. In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Freedom of speech means nothing unless it means the freedom of those who think differently. If censorship and oppression become a part of every day life in a society, then it will never prosper or maturate. If the greatest minds in history were ostracized for their thoughts the things we take for granted would no longer be ng e wnlle tne presence or too mucn government Is unaeslraDle tne aosence 0T it is unacceptable. Mill delineates the only time when the authority of society can ustly impede the individual as to prevent from injuring those interests of other people that should be considered rights. Mill contests that; since people receive protection and solidarity from society they owe certain conduct in return. This conduct includes avoiding infringing upon thy neighbors rights. He insinuates that any action is acceptable as long as it does not negatively affect another member of the society. The harm principle is thrust upon us from this notion, and the idea that one cannot do anything that does not affect another in some way. Mill contests that if n action affects no one but the person acting and others by their consent, it should not only be legally permitted but also socially accepted. The argument against such interference is the testament that when the government does decide to intervene, even if in good faith, it will do so wrongly. His last point on the harm principle alludes to his opinion on self-awareness. After describing the perils of government becoming too powerful Mill begins to describe a healthy relationship between society and human liberty. Mill examines the issue of government social programs and ssistance, and when the state should intervene to help the individual. He gives objections to said interference; his initial point being that, the person who is best suited to solve the problem is usually the individual himself or herself. There are evils that arise from giving the state so much power. It stifles human development, because ultimately this lack of development will stifle the state itself. But Mill sees this progress as only able to emerge from an open culture, one free from conformity. Mills main assertion through this part of the text is that if he can do for himself he hould do for himself; any deviation from this would be a detriment to society. In describing the thoughts of Rousseau and Mill and their theories of individuality and society you can draw conclusions about the appropriate relationship of sovereignty to liberty. A healthy relationship between citizen and government can best be described as harmonious and engaged. The citizen should be prudent enough to act within his or her rights without intentionally crossing anothers, for such actions should be punished by the states law enforcement. The state is only as good as each ndividual citizen so active participation in government should be strongly encourage but not mandated for those who are forced to engage in political life will not do so adequately. If the individual feels so disinclined to participate in normal political engagements then his or her grievances against laws past by the sovereign should not be heard. Finally the general welfare of the state will be preserved, and the society will be afforded years of stability if the general public collectively practices common sense and considers the greater good when making decisions.