Overview
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #1: Does the State have a legitimate claim to authority? Compare how at least two (2) philosophers / texts in part 2 address this question and explain how they compare to your own understanding of the question. Use what you have learned in the Required Readings on Political Philosophy, the hermeneutic circle of meaning in the texts you've selected, your own judgments and reasoning to make your case. Remember the requirement to quote both from the Required Readings and the Philosophical Text at least once each in your Original Post.
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #2: How should the State be constituted? Compare how at least two (2) philosophers / texts in part 2 address this question and explain how they compare to your own understanding of the question. Use what you have learned in the Required Readings on Political Philosophy, the hermeneutic circle of meaning in the texts you've selected, your own judgments and reasoning to make your case. Remember the requirement to quote both from the Required Readings and the Philosophical Text at least once each in your Original Post.
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #3: How far should the coercive activity of the State be constrained by the freedom or rights of the citizen? Compare how at least two (2) philosophers / texts in part 2 address this question and explain how they compare to your own understanding of the question. Use what you have learned in the Required Readings on Political Philosophy, the hermeneutic circle of meaning in the texts you've selected, your own judgments and reasoning to make your case. Remember the requirement to quote both from the Required Readings and the Philosophical Text at least once each in your Original Post.
There are two posts to respond to after the Original post, I will put them below.
Post #1
Does the State have a legitimate claim to authority?
The state has legitimate claim to authority in that it has the power to enforce laws, collect taxes, solve disputes, ensure protection and security of its citizens. To ensure democracy prevails, the laws must be enforced especially to people who break the laws, criminals, terrorist, and people who disrupt peace. If we had no laws then we’ll have a chaotic society since everyone will do whatever they wish, crime will rise, and there will be no peace. Citizens have an obligation to obey the state laws without coercion and the state should respect its citizens too. If leaders govern effectively with respect for the rules of the institution of democracy, then this will help establish a legitimate political system and everyone will be happy.
John Locke’s theory “In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. “He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society” (Tuckness 2020). My interpretation of what Lock meant was that the first natural law came from God then people introduce other laws to govern themselves and he argued that the state can exercise powers but only to those who consent, and the state should protect its citizens and not to use any coercive powers. Governments exist by the consent of its citizens so as protect their rights and if the government regime fails its citizens, then the people have the right to revolt against the government.
David Hume theory implies that if citizens knowingly consent to the government authority, then they are obligated to obey. He argued that if the consent was a singed document, then it must be evaluated whether it’s genuine and this does not obligate anyone to obey. “If we are speaking of actual consent, when was it given? Suppose what is probably false, that consent was given in some historical contract – how does that bind the contractors’ successors who were not party to it? Who nowadays has given their explicit consent? Perhaps a few naturalized citizens who have signed on the dotted line, but no more than these” (Required reading #2, Political legitimacy). From what I gathered from this statement is that the state has laws and if they are signed, they must meet certain conditions to become an obligation to its citizens. Citizens abide to these laws willingly without coercion.
In conclusion, Locke agrees that the state can exercise its powers but only to those who consent to be ruled, and those who’ve consented have an obligation to obey the state. Hume on the other hand objects to the idea of consent but argued that those who consent have an obligation to obey the state. We’ve to be aware of what we consent to especially most of us sign a lot of documents without reading the fine print, and by signing any documents it shows that we consent to the stipulations drafted in that document.
Tuckness, Alex, “Locke’s Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Plato.stanford.edu, 2020.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
W6.P1. Required Reading #2: Political Legitimacy
https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/le/content/719495/viewContent/26961409/View
Post #2
"The great purpose for which men enter into society is to be safe and at peace in their use of their property" (Locke) John Locke simply put, what I believe should be the way a state is constituted. That a government's main priority is to ensure the safety of its citizens and make sure the rights they impose are not tamped with. However, in recent years it has become very evident that those in power do not have those interests in mind; our political landscape has become a game of who's in power having all the control, versus, those in power working with those not in order to make a compromise. This is the bad side of democracy; the side were the people who vote do not always know what is good for them in the long run. I believe this is due to poor education and a lack of a true understanding of how our democracy is supposed to run. However, with the idea of term limits and the checks and balances imposed on the state, it is defiantly not as bad as it could be.
"Any ruler wishing to give peace to the state must disperse the partisans of powerful ministers. If he does not disperse their partisans, they will enlarge their parties. Any ruler wishing to maintain order in his country must adjust the distribution of his gifts. If he does not adjust the distribution of his gifts, rapacious men will seek for extraordinary profits. To grant them requests will then be the same as to lend axes to enemies. It is not right to lend out such things. For they will be used for assaulting the ruler." (Liao) Han Fei Tzu makes the point that equality must be implanted into the state. What I understand about granting the request to rapacious men seems to be something like lobbyists in the modern day. These lobbyists use their money to influence certain members of the state into making policy that favors their bottom line. Such things have always been issues; however, the use of resources to further political power versus giving back to the people who voted you in has been a more common trend in recent times.
References
John Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government (1689) Text is in the Public Domain.
W.K. Liao, The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu (1929). Text is in the Public Domain.