Starting with John Locke, who was writing during arguably one of the most turbulent eras in England's history--the deposing of King James II in favor of his daughter and her husband, just after the country had sort of settled down after the whole beheading of Charles I/Cromwell's reign/the Restoration saga--basically argues much of what would later show up in America's Declaration of Independence: basically that governments cannot exist without the consent of the governed. I think he was probably taking pot shots at the ever-popular King James II who was trying to impose an absolute monarchy on the people who had beheaded his father for many of the same reasons, which is very interesting to read while we have a president with the same sort of intellect. Thank heavens we have term limits--I'm not sure we're up to beheadings just yet. Not to say we're absolutely above such things--if we were faced with the prospect of 4 more years--or heaven forbid, the rest of his life--of Georgie Junior as president......let's just say that tips from the Borgia book of entertaining might become EXTREMELY popular in Washington D.C......
Thomas Hobbes also seems to believe in social contract theory (not positive about his views on bumping off rulers), but his writing is more about why people would want government in the first place--to protect them from each other, which is largely true I think. Much of his essay is really hard to get through, but I did enjoy this:
For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be mnany so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equall, than unequall. For there is not ordinarily a greater signe of the equall distribution of any thing, than that every mand is contented with his share. [sic]
Now I'm partway through Rousseau's Social Contract. The most interesting points so far:
"I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them." (Take THAT uninformed voters!!!)
"The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty."
I've been thinking about this second point and can't decide if I believe his assertion or not. Look at how thoroughly people were controlled in Nazi Germany and in communist Russia--it was through "strength," certainly, but also through alienation and. Can we really say that any leader in modern society could convince people to do something out of duty? In America, we can't even get most of our population to vote.
Next up: Thomas Paine and Barnon de Montesquieu
1 comment:
No offence intended but I'm afraid there is a flaw in your logic regarding Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. They weren't governed by strength but by weakness. A government that feels it needs to kill any and all opponents, forbid basic human rights and alienate its inhabitants for fear it might lose its power is weak. A strong leader does not need to fear opponents because he can persuade them with arguments, or let his deeds speak for him. So if you look at Rousseau's quote from a slightly different angle, he is absolutely right when he says that obedience and duty are the foremost qualities of a leader. Put into modern terms - an elected government / president has to obey those that voted for him and put him into power for a certain purpose, and it is the government / president's duty to fulfill that task.
Post a Comment