Before the introduction of sovereignty, man withered in the state of nature. Sovereignty, enabling the authority of the state to govern itself, did not mirror the times of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes living in a time of a civil war in England and Rousseau in the mists of the French Revolution wrote novels, The Leviathan and On the Social Contract, entailing the creation of a sovereign state from their times of distress. Though a century apart, these theorists did not coincide with their respective times. Hobbes denounced religion and the divine ruling of God for secular authority of a king, and Rousseau even further went against the ruling of a monarchy, for a republic that gave the people power. Their justification for
…show more content…
In the Leviathan, Hobbes establishes that that the king is the secular authoritarian leader, yet if the king were to be atrocious or there were no successors, who would uphold the authority. The people do not have the power to determine who can be their ruler such as with Rousseau’s Of the Social Contract, therefore, the system to appoint a new ruler would not be present. This would then cause the fall back into the state of nature and complete anarchy. As well the future generations do not have a choice in who their king will be, so how, as “man is born free”, would they have the same obligation to follow his order (Rousseau, 1). Overall, the sovereign is given too much power and the people have no formal say in what is to happen to them. Though Rousseau provides the people with more control over their king and the laws that constitute their government, by entering into the commonwealth, the commitment to act in accordance to the laws does not allow individual interests or liberties. The general will is superior to natural liberties as detailed in the social contract, so either one's natural liberties coincides with the general will or they must suppress those interests. Likewise, the representation for the assembly could go against the people because they are viewed as the “blind multitude” and have no official ruling due to the hierarchy of power. This sovereignty may not be a monarchy, but it is not deemed as a democracy because it still has an individual ruler. Both sovereign states were initiated to deviate from the state of nature, but fall into varying faults that depreciate the accounts of Hobbes and
In the Leviathan, Hobbes establishes that that the king is the secular authoritarian leader, yet if the king were to be atrocious or there were no successors, who would uphold the authority. The people do not have the power to determine who can be their ruler such as with Rousseau’s Of the Social Contract, therefore, the system to appoint a new ruler would not be present. This would then cause the fall back into the state of nature and complete anarchy. As well the future generations do not have a choice in who their king will be, so how, as “man is born free”, would they have the same obligation to follow his order (Rousseau, 1). Overall, the sovereign is given too much power and the people have no formal say in what is to happen to them. Though Rousseau provides the people with more control over their king and the laws that constitute their government, by entering into the commonwealth, the commitment to act in accordance to the laws does not allow individual interests or liberties. The general will is superior to natural liberties as detailed in the social contract, so either one's natural liberties coincides with the general will or they must suppress those interests. Likewise, the representation for the assembly could go against the people because they are viewed as the “blind multitude” and have no official ruling due to the hierarchy of power. This sovereignty may not be a monarchy, but it is not deemed as a democracy because it still has an individual ruler. Both sovereign states were initiated to deviate from the state of nature, but fall into varying faults that depreciate the accounts of Hobbes and