Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature is the idea of life without government …show more content…
The sovereign has legal authority over the state and has the ability to execute anything it wants. In absolutism the sovereign is indivisible and cannot be divided into different divisions of power. In Hobbesian sovereign the sovereign judges what beliefs are taught to the commonwealth and the sovereign determines what is necessary for defense of the commonwealth. The sovereign has the power to appoint ministers as they are not elected, make war, appoint judges and to determine all property relations in the …show more content…
Their power is limited to making collective decisions for the best of society. Individuals in society should be responsible for electing the head as a democracy and absolute power should not be given to one or a few individuals. Individuals should be able to own their own property and make the choices they want as long as they follow as set of regulations that apply equally to society and the rule of law exists. I think absolutism is flawed as individuals in society do not own their own property and the sovereign has the ability to take control of what individuals have earned. I agree with John Locke’s ideas about ownership and the protection of one’s property being sacrosanct as individuals have worked hard to earn what they have and they should have full responsibility of what theirs. This should be accomplished by constitutions and how they can protect our beliefs and property only if not harmful to society. Conflicts in property such as gun laws in society should be carefully digressed whether to be incorporated into society based on the terms of safety for society as a whole.
In contrast to absolutism, Nozick’s entitlement theory states that one has the right to their holdings if they were acquired through legal means. An example of this is inheritance, one would legally inherit another individual’s assets if they were legally given to them.