Social Contract – Hobbes, Locke, RousseauAfter reading the three social contractarians, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is clear they each have different views on how to define a legitimate government, how to obtain one, what human nature is, and the social contract theory itself. The state of nature is a theoretical state in which there is no government formed yet. Each author speaks on how he believes humans interact or act individually in this state. The social contract was created by each of the three authors to eradicate any problems that may have arisen in the state of nature. That means, the basis of what they believe a legit government entails, and is responsible for, all begins with what they believe the intentions
…show more content…
Explicit consent is a little more serious. If someone literally signs their allegiance to the social contract, they are legally bound to the commonwealth. They cannot return to the state of nature and must abide by the laws. This may seem like the less wise of the decisions, but that was during a time where explicit consent was the norm and those who only gave tacit consent were almost looked down upon. Locke was concerned with tyranny. He believed that it was important to limit tyranny, or the impoverishing, harassing, or subduing of property with illegal laws. He wanted to limit power of the government. Power is bound by the consent of the individuals and fears rebellion. Locke limits the government by creating a separation of powers. This is very smart and falls in line with what a legitimate government entails. The first act is to form legislation. To Locke, legislation is the most important branch. Executive branch has less power than the legislation branch. He emphasizes the importance of lawmaking. Locke seems to favor the idea of a democratic government. Executive power cannot always be bounded by legislative branch. In extreme cases, it does not rely on laws, but the individuals within them. Pursuit of peace for citizens which a legitimate government needs to do at all times. It needs to keep the best interest of its citizens in mind at all times. This is similar to the powers given to both the legislative and executive branch. There are certain instances where a branch can extend its power when necessary and proper for the good of its citizens. As the final check on
Explicit consent is a little more serious. If someone literally signs their allegiance to the social contract, they are legally bound to the commonwealth. They cannot return to the state of nature and must abide by the laws. This may seem like the less wise of the decisions, but that was during a time where explicit consent was the norm and those who only gave tacit consent were almost looked down upon. Locke was concerned with tyranny. He believed that it was important to limit tyranny, or the impoverishing, harassing, or subduing of property with illegal laws. He wanted to limit power of the government. Power is bound by the consent of the individuals and fears rebellion. Locke limits the government by creating a separation of powers. This is very smart and falls in line with what a legitimate government entails. The first act is to form legislation. To Locke, legislation is the most important branch. Executive branch has less power than the legislation branch. He emphasizes the importance of lawmaking. Locke seems to favor the idea of a democratic government. Executive power cannot always be bounded by legislative branch. In extreme cases, it does not rely on laws, but the individuals within them. Pursuit of peace for citizens which a legitimate government needs to do at all times. It needs to keep the best interest of its citizens in mind at all times. This is similar to the powers given to both the legislative and executive branch. There are certain instances where a branch can extend its power when necessary and proper for the good of its citizens. As the final check on