- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
“We ought to obey the state when its decisions are made democratically”. Discuss
For centuries many different political thinkers, as well as ideologies, have had contrasting reasons for why and when the state should be obeyed, if it should be at all. These views range from whether a system is truly democratic, to if it infringes upon liberty or autonomy. As such, these views need to be considered, as they are the root cause of why the notion that the state should be obeyed is disputed. Therefore this essay shall attempt to address the thoughts of these different groups and explain why their ideas conflict.
In democratic systems, whether using direct or indirect democracy, decisions are made when more than 50% vote a certain way; this may in turn cause those in the minority to be having to follow laws they do not agree with. As John Stuart Mill once put it, the “tyranny of the majority” “may desire to oppress a part of their number, and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power” . As the decisions made may end up infringing upon the liberties of minorities, for example by forcing their own ideas and customs upon them, this can be used for the justification that minorities do not have to obey state decisions, as the decisions made have not considered them.
This argument can be contrasted with John Locke’s view on tyranny, that:
Wherever law ends tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm. And whosever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under this command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man who by force invades the rights of another .
By Locke stating tyranny begins when law being broken causes another’s harm, this therefore can be used be justify that state actions can be opposed whenever they break the law, laws being in place for a reason, breaking them likely causes harm. A relatively recent example would be the British government allegedly breaking international law by allowing the supposed “CIA “rendition” flights of terror suspects to land at UK airports” , and the associated backlash this created. The contrast between Mill and Locke is then that the “tyranny of the majority” is not tyrannical in the sense that they break laws, because the tyrannising majority change and create laws instead. In this sense then, Locke seemingly disagrees with Mill’s assertion, or merely does not recognise it as a form of tyranny in his thoughts at the time.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a very different approach altogether, he had argued that when people weren’t free, they acted in their own selfish interests, but were free when they acted altruistically. Subsequently he used this for the basis that people genuinely wanted (regardless to whether they knew this or not) what was for the common good, or “the general will”. This meant that if people had particular wills “contrary or dissimilar to the general will” this would mean “nothing less than he will be forced to be free” . In terms of whether the state should be obeyed or not, Rousseau is saying that a state ought to be obeyed, even if it wasn’t democratic, for as long as the general will is followed. Furthermore, Mill’s “tyranny of the majority” infringing on the liberty of the minority, is not a problem according to Rousseau. Indeed, it could be considered a good thing, as it is the democratic expression of the general will, and when it is followed, it makes everybody free.
Others have argued along quite different lines and come to the conclusion that the state need not be obeyed. Robert Paul Wolff wrote not in terms of the general will, but in terms of the autonomy and will of the individuals themselves. In his book ‘In Defence of Anarchism’ he wrote:
If all men have a continuing obligation to achieve the highest degree of autonomy possible, then there would appear to be no state whose subjects have a moral obligation to obey its command.
The line of reasoning behind this is that the autonomy of the individual is all important, that states are illegitimate because they infringe upon this autonomy.
In terms of representative democracy Wolff further goes on to say “so long as I do not, either in person or through my agent, join in the enactment of the laws by which I am governed, I cannot justly claim to be autonomous” . Still in terms of autonomy, democratic representatives cannot truly represent the views and interests of their constituents because they have not consulted the opinions of the people represented there at every instance that they vote. As such, their autonomy is infringed because decisions and laws are made that they haven’t agreed to; and this is why we are not morally obliged to obey state decisions.
Edmund Burke however would disagree with this, the notion that representatives don’t represent the interests of their constituencies. He once said “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” , hence whilst not on a delegation basis, representatives would nevertheless represent the best interests of the constituents through their ‘mature judgement’ and ‘enlightened conscience’ which are necessary for proper well informed decision making.
An absolutist monarchy of government therefore, whereby liberties are infringed, autonomy not respected, with the will of the monarch and not the general will followed, would seem like the worse form of government. Yet some philosophers have argued that even under these seemingly oppressive regimes the citizens still have an absolute obligation to obey the state. Thomas Hobbes took up this position in his book ‘Leviathan’ where by arguing “Feare of oppression, disposeth a man to anticipate, or seek ayd by society: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life and liberty” he had argued that any form of government, regardless to “however oppressive, is preferable to the existence of no state at all” , where we would otherwise descend into a state of nature, ‘of chaos and barbarism’, where the life of man would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” .
Hobbes main weakness perhaps is that liberty or general will, can still be pursued without this leading to the decay into the state of nature; that perhaps pursuing these things may in themselves help to create a more stable and prosperous nation, because the decisions made are more legitimate, making people feel more obligated to follow state decisions. Furthermore, Hobbes, to justify his argument, used the assumption that if without a state we would descend into chaos; if this assumption can be properly challenged, that in a stateless society we would not decay into barbarism, then the argument does not hold water.
Anarchists have long argued this, believing that “the state is unnecessary because order and social harmony can arise naturally and spontaneously, and do not have to imposed ‘from above’ through government” . An example of this would be the Kibbutz system certain communities used in Israel for a time, where they would govern themselves without having the government interfere in their internal affairs; this occurring without this stateless community decaying into chaos and barbarism.
This in itself can be another reason why the state doesn’t have to be obeyed, its existence is unnecessary; the decisions it makes are redundant and possibly counter-productive, as people would make and agree to the same laws if they were just.
For centuries many different political thinkers, as well as ideologies, have[don't need "have"] had contrasting reasons for why and when the state should be obeyed, if it should be [obeyed] at all.
Therefore[,] this essay shall attempt to address the thoughts of these different groups and explain why their ideas conflict.
This argument can be contrasted with John Locke’s view on tyranny, that:[I don't think you need "that"]
And [whoever] in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under this[his?] command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not...
By Locke stating tyranny begins when [the] law being broken causes another’s harm, this therefore can be used be justify that state actions can be opposed whenever they break the law[;] laws being in place for a reason, breaking them likely causes harm.
Subsequently[,] he used this for the basis that people genuinely wanted (regardless [of] whether they knew this or not) what was for the common good, or “the general will”.
Furthermore, Mill’s “tyranny of the majority” infringing on the liberty of the minority,[don't need this comma] is not a problem according to Rousseau.
The line of reasoning behind this is that the autonomy of the individual is all[don't need "all"] important, that states are illegitimate because they infringe upon this autonomy.
As such, their autonomy is infringed because decisions and laws are made that they [have not] agreed to; and[don't need "and"] this is why we are not morally obliged to obey state decisions.
Edmund Burke however would disagree with this, the notion that representatives [do not] represent the interests of their constituencies.
An absolutist monarchy of government[,] therefore, whereby liberties are infringed, autonomy not respected, with the will of the monarch and not the general will followed, would seem like the worse[either "the worst" or "a worse"] form of government.
Thomas Hobbes took up this position in his book ‘Leviathan’ where by arguing “[Fear] of oppression, [disposes] a man to anticipate, or seek ayd[?] by society...
...where the life of man would be “solitary, [poor], nasty, brutish, and short” .
Hobbes main weakness perhaps is that liberty or general will,[don't need comma] can still be pursued without this leading to the decay into the state of nature; that[don't need "that"] perhaps pursuing these things...
Anarchists have long argued this, believing that “the state is unnecessary because order and social harmony can arise naturally and spontaneously, and do not have to [be] imposed ‘from above’ through government” .
...this occurring["occurred" or "was occurring"] without this stateless community decaying into chaos and barbarism.
This in itself can be another reason why the state [does not] have to be obeyed...
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Raven69[/b]Thank you. 🙂
Edmund Burke however would disagree with this, the notion that representatives [b][do not] represent the interests of their constituencies.
An absolutist monarchy of government[,] therefore, whereby liberties are infringed, autonomy not respected, with the will of the monarch and not the general will followed, would seem like the worse[eithe in itself can be another reason why the state [b][does not] have to be obeyed...[/b]
A couple of things of note, you actually managed to correct me on some of the quotes i made, as indeed it was his instead of this, apparently also it is whosoever not whoever. Thomas Hobbes just can't spell though, he really did spell it poore, disposeth and ayd (whatever the heck he meant by that), and I just quoted him directly, as my understand says I should do.
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou're welcome! I just hope I corrected correctly. 😵
Thank you. 🙂
A couple of things of note, you actually managed to correct me on some of the quotes i made, as indeed it was his instead of this, apparently also it is whosoever not whoever. Thomas Hobbes just can't spell though, he really did spell it poore, disposeth and ayd (whatever the heck he meant by that), and I just quoted him directly, as my understand says I should do.[/b]
Oh...😕
Originally posted by Raven69"Have had" could be correct. It is the present perfect tense, used when you want to connect the present with the past. You would write:
For centuries many different political thinkers, as well as ideologies, have[b][don't need "have"] had contrasting reasons for why and when the state should be obeyed, if it should be [obeyed] at all.[/b]
I had a car in December, 2006.
I have had a car since December, 2006.
For two years, I have had a car.