Throughout human history, the subject of philosophy has produced countless philosophers who have, in turn, created countless theories and terms influential to western society. For example, could the founding fathers have produced the U.S. constitution without the philosophical works of Hobbes and Locke? Probably not. In a similar fashion, there have been many philosophical works that have been used in the foundation of other works, such as the Sovereignty of the State. The Sovereignty of the State is defined as the ability of a state to maintain complete control of its own affairs, such as having the power to govern its own territory. But as a standalone concept it is relatively confusing because it does not necessarily give a reason why it
…show more content…
In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill describes Liberty as three basic freedoms. The first freedom being of thought/emotion, the second being of the pursuit of tastes, and the final freedom being the ability to unite as long as those that do so are willing and of age. But to better understand the relation between liberty and the sovereignty of the state, one has to start before the state even existed. Prior to the establishment of states people lived in what is now known as the state of nature, a concept first made popular by the contractarian Thomas Hobbes. John Locke, another contractarian, defines the state of nature as the “freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke, 365). Thus each man and women had the liberty to do as they wish, as no superior power existed to constrain their liberty. But the state of nature was not perfect with the inherent problem with the state of nature is that although they had unlimited liberty, there was no power to protect those same liberties. Thus for security, people had to relinquish their unlimited liberty. But this action does not signify the loss of liberty, it simply means that it is now the responsibility of the state to protect these individual liberties. By protecting these liberties the people in the contract give legitimacy to the state, which means a legitimate state can guarantee its sovereignty. If a state doesn’t protect the people’s liberty, then it is not legitimate and could be
In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill describes Liberty as three basic freedoms. The first freedom being of thought/emotion, the second being of the pursuit of tastes, and the final freedom being the ability to unite as long as those that do so are willing and of age. But to better understand the relation between liberty and the sovereignty of the state, one has to start before the state even existed. Prior to the establishment of states people lived in what is now known as the state of nature, a concept first made popular by the contractarian Thomas Hobbes. John Locke, another contractarian, defines the state of nature as the “freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke, 365). Thus each man and women had the liberty to do as they wish, as no superior power existed to constrain their liberty. But the state of nature was not perfect with the inherent problem with the state of nature is that although they had unlimited liberty, there was no power to protect those same liberties. Thus for security, people had to relinquish their unlimited liberty. But this action does not signify the loss of liberty, it simply means that it is now the responsibility of the state to protect these individual liberties. By protecting these liberties the people in the contract give legitimacy to the state, which means a legitimate state can guarantee its sovereignty. If a state doesn’t protect the people’s liberty, then it is not legitimate and could be