Seeking the Perfect Relationship Between the Citizen and the State

1554 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The history of freedom

Throughout the centuries, the quest for the perfect and balanced relationship between the citizen and the state has been the focus of philosophers and thinkers. Driven by the human need to secure the natural rights of the individual and the necessity to safeguard the social and political institution known as the state, those men of thought differed among themselves in approach as well as in theories. Their thoughts diverged substantially as to rest on totally opposite if not contradictory sides. From the overwhelming belief in the absolute authority of the state even when wrong, as in Socrates, to the idolization of the citizen’s God given rights emphasized by Rousseau.

The progressive evolution of the human mind from past to present, enriched by the vast intellectual writings of those thinkers, and sharpened by the bitter experiences people had to go through with absolute monarchies, unchallenged dictators and autocratic rulers who waged continuous and even personal wars and caused their people to suffer untold disasters rendering them to more like slaves than citizens. All that ignited the sentiments of freedom and liberty in the hearts of men and women everywhere. What began as questioning of the Divine Right of a monarch, turned into rebellion against the absolute and uncontrollable power of the ruler. Democracy as we know it became the aspiration of man.

Ever since, the search for the perfect relationship between the citizen and the state continues. And no matter how different the theories on the subject may seem, they all share a common concept that the legitimate political authority or the state should strive to uphold, rather than constrain, the rights bestowed on man by nature. That is to say that the idea behind having...

... middle of paper ...

...tate, and much remains. With time, as people transitioned from being subjects of a king or queen to being citizens of a city and later to a nation. And they struggle to create for themselves a society that provides for their needs, fulfils their dreams and desires and guarantees them happiness, present and future. And as we live in a world that changes constantly, bringing into our lives new challenges that require the making of almost infallible choices; we feel the mounting need to be the masters of our own decisions whether personally or collectively. As citizens of a true democracy, we ought to feel that. As creators of a government that becomes our guardian and leader, we are to be the rulers and the ruled, the lawgivers and the law-abiding. Once again, it may be just right to accept only a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Show More
Related

  • Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will compare the theories and ideas from both Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In comparing these two philosophers, I will be paralleling their ideas and my own ideas I will be attributing them towards the modern day whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Political figures, government representatives and philosophy advocates have carefully studied Burke’s and Mill’s writings over hundreds of years to better understand their theories on governmental control in a society. One of, if not the most noteworthy concept in both their famous writings revolved around the concept of governmental control in a society. Both Burke and Mill have their own theories; they also have many convincing opinions that help them to sustain their own individuality. In order to compare their views of governmental control and relate it to Edward Snowden it is imperative to thoroughly examine and understand each of their perspectives on civilization and governmental control in a society.

    Read More

  • Hunger Games vs Red Scare

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...n a government is the group that states what is to be socially acceptable and what is not, it greatly hinders a person ability to act as an individual. Whether it is the fear of being classified as abnormal, false or unjust imprisonment, or making a show out of large groups of the abnormal people, it is all in order for the government to maintain control. Within both of these contexts it is more important for there to be a strong central government than to allow a person to truly be an unique, which in return takes away what is considered to be a persons right.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Genocide: A Challenge to the Right to Life

    2165 Words  | 5 Pages

    Therefore, legislation as deliberate law-making and the voice of the state of the sovereign body calls the common good of the life of man to the forefront of this question, both when democracy rules but primarily when totalitarian despots reign. The politicization of bare life as such legitimates the power of the sovereign state. But as repetitive instances of state-sponsored genocide have shown multiple times throughout the 20th century, state power can and does abuse the life of the citizen, whose life is paradoxically the force of the nation-state itself. It is through this e...

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Respect, Coercion and Religious Belief

    3319 Words  | 7 Pages

    Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...

    Read More

  • Coercion, The State, and Anarchy

    2516 Words  | 6 Pages

    Though effective (and desirable) anarchy may be a rarity thus far though mankind’s history, this does not mean that it must continue to be. Anarchism as an actual way of life may be far off into man’s future, but this writer believes that it is nonetheless there, and that it will be the pinnacle of man’s political evolution. Until then, taking ‘baby steps’ in that direction is an acceptable start; simply understanding that the state is an unjust means of society is already a great beginning. Even if it is impractical in modern society, we should not reject it as a goal on that basis alone. As we are all equals, the Golden Rule demands that we treat others reciprocally and respectfully; how can we as a race hope to achieve this, when the supposed flagship of humanity, the state, cannot do so?

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    Read More

  • The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Individual Freedom vs. Majority Rule

    1678 Words  | 4 Pages

    In answering this final question raised, the conclusion to the essay emerges. We have seen how difficult it is to simply define liberty as a single conception, but have discovered many properties that a statement of freedom must posses. In the question between the conflicts of freedom, where two persons individual freedoms create a zero-sum game, the idea of social freedom emerges, and the idea that it is possible for there to be restrictions on an individual's freedom that are morally desirable. To best, and most simply explain in what sense we want people to be free, a balance must be found between the extent to which society may restrict an individual's freedom, and vice versa. As can be seen by observing politics throughout the ages, it is finding this balance that has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the ongoing question of freedom.

    Read More

  • Democracy: Loyalty, Security, and Liberty

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.

    Read More

More about Seeking the Perfect Relationship Between the Citizen and the State

Open Document