Legitimate Governments in Theoretical Perspective

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Thesis Statement
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

This paper is based on the topic of political and social theory. It focuses on the origins of legitimate governments based on the arguments of three philosophers namely Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Platos Socratic dialogues (Apology and Crito). The paper pays special attention to the main views and values of each author as to what constitutes legitimate governments, the power of such governments and the limitations of the power and authority of legitimate governments.

Thesis Statement

Rousseaus arguments on the origin of legitimate governments are more compelling than those of Hobbes and Plato. This is because he traces the development of legitimate governments to the emergence of private property which came as a result of increase in human population. Private property pushed man to form governments so that he could enjoy his natural rights and run away from the state of nature, which the three theorists described as brutal, nasty and harsh.

Plato

Plato was one of the first philosophers to put into writings the works of Socrates. In two of his dialogues (the Apology and Crito) Plato constructs the views of Socrates in a manner which resembles the social contract theory by Hobbes and Rousseau. According to Plato and as presented in the Apology and Crito, the main value which led to the emergence of legitimate government is the value of justice (Emery 46).

In the Apology and Crito, Plato portrays Socrates as a person who stands by his beliefs and words. He also portrays him as a hardliner who would not be moved by anything to change his philosophy on any issue. On the issue of fear of death, Socrates is presented as a fearless person, who would not be intimidated by anybody or anything to change his philosophy. He is not afraid of death and goes ahead to state that the fear of death is illogical because no one knows what happens after death.

When he is brought before the jury to answer charges of atheism and corrupting the youth, he says that he prefers death sentence because it would reprieve him of the burden of living a life which is full of contradictions and biases. He blames the jury for being ignorant of his arguments and for agreeing with the charges brought by Meletus, who is not able to substantiate his arguments.

In the apology, Plato argues that Socrates was not afraid of death because he was ready to obey the laws of Athens, which according to Socrates enabled his parents to give birth and take care of him. According to Socrates, men are naturally inclined to do injustice to each other, that is, each man would like to do injustice to the other man. Men also fear the effects of doing injustice to others and thus, in a state of nature, each man would like to do harm to others and be spared of any punishment for doing so.

Accordingly, this state of nature does not allow any man to survive and that is the reason why men agree to make laws to regulate their behavior. The laws result into establishment of a legitimate government which is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that all men are able to access justice. The same government is responsible for ensuring that those who do injustice to others are punished for doing so.

The limitation of the power and authority of such governments is that all men are not naturally equal. Some are influential than others and therefore, some may do injustice to others and manage to escape the effects of doing so through what Socrates calls mistakes by the jury or government.

For instance, even though Socrates accepts death sentence, he faults the decision by the jury to sentence him to death as a result of false and inconsistent arguments by his accuser Meletus. The value of justice is therefore very central in Platos arguments about the origin of a legitimate government.

Thomas Hobbes

Just like Plato and Rousseau, Hobbes described the state of nature as almost impossible to allow for the existence of humanity. His main value in the explanation of the emergence of legitimate governments was the value of rationality. According to him, men are naturally driven by their self interest which pushes them to meet as many selfish needs as possible irrespective of how they meet those needs.

Since it is practically impossible for every man to meet his selfish and personal interests, men through the value of rationality and the ability to reason established a society. It was within this society that men were able to pursue their selfish interests. Men therefore agreed to surrender part of their natural rights and in return get protection, order and norms within their societies.

The value of rationality enabled men to realize that they could not simply go about meeting their selfish and individual interests because each man had different selfish and personal interests and therefore, if they all met their selfish interests, life would have been like the hypothetical state of nature (Hobbes 19).

Accordingly, governments were established to regulate the behavior and contact of men in the society. The governments were supposed to enforce the laws and regulations which men agreed to govern their contact. Such laws include laws governing human rights, natural rights among other aspects of human life and society. The government was therefore supposed to ensure each man not only got his rights but was also provided with an environment to pursue the same rights and self interests.

The key limitation of the power and authority of such a government is that Hobbes suggested that the government has a super authority and is not subject to questioning by any other authority. This form of government as postulated by Hobbes has the effect of creating monarchies and dictatorships; which eventually can prevent man from pursuing his selfish and individual interests. Such authority and power are therefore limited in that there would be the need of creating another authority to check the excesses of the governments.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In his discourse on the origin of inequality, Rousseau puts forward a logical explanation of how men progressively moved from the state of nature to form legitimate governments. According to him, the state of nature was both good and bad. It was good because men were born free and were very few at the beginning.

Consequently, they were naturally able to meet their needs and self interests because nature was able to provide for everything that man wanted. It was bad because the same man, with the abundance provided by nature still had the ability and desire to harm and do injustice to other men.

As the population of men grew, they started living in communities. What followed was division of labor among families which eventually led to the emergence inventions and innovations thus making life easier. As a result of division of labor, men had some hours left for leisure which they used to compare themselves with others leading to competition which later led to the emergence of private property (Rousseau 56).

Private property was therefore Rousseaus main value which led to the emergence of legitimate governments. Since division of labor and specialization led to the increase of inequalities, the emergence of private property further appeared to reinforce those inequalities within communities.

It also led to the emergence of social classes within communities. According to Rousseau, it was the few men who had acquired enough property who came up with the idea of forming a government with a sole aim of protecting their property from those who had not acquired it but would have wanted to acquire it by force.

Accordingly, governments were formed to provide equality and protection for all people and enable every one to have a good environment to acquire property.

However, Rousseau pointed out that the formation of governments was a conspiracy of the rich to govern and exploit the poor in the disguise of offering protection and equality for all. This is the limitation of such power and authority because sometimes the poor may rebel against the governments through revolutions and overthrow the governments and return the society to its state of nature.

Conclusion

I find Rousseaus arguments on the emergence of legitimate governments more compelling. This is because he provides a logical and progressive account of how man has evolved from the state of nature to form a government; and how the same man can destroy the government and revert back to the state of nature.

Works Cited

Emery, Watson. Platos Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito: arranged for dramatic presentation from the Jowett translation with choruses, Lanham: Md Univ. Press of America, 1996. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, London: Continuum, 2005. Print.

Rousseau, Jacques. Discourse on Inequality: On the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men, Auckland: Floating Press, 1910. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!