In his essay The Law, Frederic Bastiat a Nineteenth century French political economist examines how the law has the potential to become a harmful tool in the hands of those in power. For Bastiat, the purpose of the law is to protect the God given individual rights and freedoms. The law becomes the defender of the natural rights. To accomplish this objective laws are meant to prevent actions that could harm others and their property. Bastiat was heavily influenced by John Locke’s ideas on government exposed on Second Treatise on Government, he believed in a small government with the role to protect the individual liberties and property rights. Bastiat exposed the consequences of a state that engages on actions which would be considered unlawful
actions if committed by individuals. Bastiat thought that since the law prevents individuals from damaging others and their property then a group of individuals then the same principle should apply to a group of individuals in an organization. Bastiat describes the act of plunder when property is taken by force or fraud without consent. A plunder becomes legal when the few in control of the law carry out the act. A state that uses the courts and jails to take property that is righteously obtain is committing legalized plunder. For Bastiat legalized plunder is a consequence of a growing government that steers away from their original purpose of defending and preventing plunder. The law should be there to prevent actions that can cause harm to others not to coerce behavior. In other words, a law that keeps individuals within the limits of justice without coercing them to change their personality or beliefs is a law that simply negates them from committing actions that could harm others. A law becomes unjust when the purpose of the law is to benefit the few in power and in the process have a negative impact on the natural rights of individuals. -Miguel Resendiz
...y Him give great stories of their experiences through a change in government at the hands of corrupt and brutal regimes. They both tell how the regimes had no sense for the individual rights of the people in society. In the end, both regimes eventually fell, but not before millions of lives were taken. These stories shed light on how correct both Bastiat and Marx were about how government should be run. They show how a government that is too controlling and too forceful on its people will never have a long lasting existence. The power of government must have limitations, and the individual rights of the members of society must be taken account for and respected. Government is needed in society and plays a very crucial role in the longevity and successfulness of a nation. However, too much or too little government control will ultimately be the demise of a society.
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Forward thinking John Locke described the government’s purpose in his Second Treatise on government. To this great thinker, political power is “a right of making laws…only for the public good” (Locke). This idea of organization is key to liberty. Government is made to protect the rights of a free person, not to remove or tarnish them. Thus, it is the type...
One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
According to Foucault, the penal justice system in the eighteenth century followed one fundamental principle: there should be no punishment without an explicit law and an explicit behavior violating the law (Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” 56). Th...
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
What lengths should one go to in order to survive? This is a question which has challenged the human race for generations and to which no satisfactory answer exists. In the modern world, this issue is examined theoretically, but rarely confronts individuals, with the exception of the most destitute. However, in harsh environments and forbidding territories, this matter becomes very real and pressing. Nature pays no attention to the arbitrary emotions of man, demanding only the forfeiture of the sorrowfully short life granted to him. Many would argue that in order to delay the inevitable conclusion awaiting every man, humans must act upon their primal intuition rather than their emotions. Jack London’s “The Law of Life” includes this naturalistic viewpoint that human survival instinct drives individuals more than feelings or compassion. London shows this through his protagonist Old Koshkoosh’s past experiences and tribal upbringing, his view on life, and the actions of his family members.
All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs. They each share some views about the effects of tyranny but they have different views on the preventions and the circumstances that give rise to tyranny. In the end, Locke has the most effective ideas as opposed to Plato and Hobbes. Although, they are all equally great minds, based on the democracy that Americans hold true, Locke’s analysis can be the only logical means of proposed prevention.
Locke’s reasoning for the creation of a government arises in the need to protect life, liberty and justice. Locke concludes that “the reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative,” but adds that the citizens “have a right to resume their original liberty … by the establishment of a new legislative” (Locke, Sec. CCXXI) when those rights are threatened. The protection of life, liberty and justice then becomes the reason for a “new legislative.”
If a government does not listen to people’s suggestion and use the absolute power to control them. That may cause a lot of dissatisfactions and those dissatisfaction will cause a big social conflict in the society. Since lot of the revolutions started as a result of lack of caring from the government and the abusing power of the rulers. As a result, the social conflict will usually from a revolution and start wars in the country at last. Although it might not happened immediately, eventually people will against the government and start the rebellion. Therefore, the natural law is very helpful for people to have that will benefit both the society and citizens. The citizens do not need to afraid of those bad rulers; they have the right to use what they earn, what they own, and spend things made by them, or fight for what they think it is important, which can be the happiest thing for them. If one ruler is not suitable they should have the rights to vote the next ruler which is a person who trust by all people and will serve the citizens well. This is the freedom for all human, which is also what John Locke hopes for. All in all, John Locke’s idea of health, liberty or possessions should be used as the goal for the
“Ignorantia juris neminem excusat” is Latin for ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ This doctrine is an intrinsic part of criminal law. Essentially, this principle holds that all members of society must be knowledgeable of the statutes that govern society. “The ignorance of law doctrine rests on the thought that people are in general charged with knowledge of the existing criminal law, which accordingly people should be on notice to ascertain.” Opponents’ primary argument is that for each member of society to know and understand every federal, state, and local ordinance would be impractical. “[M]any laws are nearly impossible to understand in all of their complexity, and the whole corpus of federal law is in fact impossible to know.”
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.