The Rule Of Man Is Nonappearance Of Rule Of Man

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

These intellectuals attempted to generate an explanation for the purpose of government and expressed their ideal political structure to find a solution to the inequalities in the distribution of power. The changing intellectual and social perceptions of the human condition led to new insights and questions of the way in which humans were ruled: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau 2). This conveys The Philosophe belief that liberty is lost when political rule is too strict, to the point where one is unable to truly live. John Locke deduced in his two Treatises on Government that humans have natural born rights to life, liberty and property (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). His ideal government protected these natural rights and permitted the freedom of its people to conduct their lives in a way that they see as best fit. He believed that the government existed to serve the people’s will, thus the power laid in the majority (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). Thomas Hobbes had an opposing view to that of Locke’s government. Hobbes advocated for the monarchy and absolutism, as this form provides strong political stability (Elahi 2). He believed that the people were indebted to the government and protected by the ruler, only if they surrendered their rights and freedoms under a social contract (Elahi 3). Jean

The rule of law is whereby the government and all those who govern are bound by the law and everyone must follow the law. Rule of law is also known as nomocracy. Government individual officials are not entitled to make any decision which is not in accordance to the law (Paulsen, Calabresi, McConnell & Bray, 2013). All the citizens are governed by the law including those who make the laws. A. V. Dicey has highly advocated for rule of law in modern times and has popularized it. In history the idea of rule of law can be traced back to the ancient civilizations like China, Mesopotamia, and Rome among others.

The text book definition of rule of law is simply stated as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. This in laymen’s terms simply means that power is no-longer the ultimate decider,

Hobbes, one philosopher who reached the peak of his career during this era, tends to uphold rather stringent criteria for individuals with “the right to rule.” Indeed, the expectations set forth for a ruler in Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 Leviathan are impressive. “For by Art is created,” he writes, “that great Leviathan called a commonwealth, or state which is but an Artificial Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Sovereignty is an Artificial Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body” (Hobbes). Not a single officer or bureaucrat within the pages of Catch 22 lives up to this criteria. Yossarian, for instance, seems to act only out of self-preservation—a fact which is made evident in his attitude towards the officers’ club on Pianosa.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes offer models for the relationship between the sovereign and the people in their works Utopia, The Discourses, and The Leviathan. Each argues that ensuring the common good of the people should be the primary goal of the sovereign. However, they differ in the specifics of their descriptions of this relationship and in their explanations of the sovereign’s motivation for valuing the prosperity of the people. An examination of the specified passages in each of these works will clarify the comparison of their models for this relationship.

Hobbes is also eager on the fact that law is depended on power. “A law without a credible and powerful authority behind it is just simply not a law in any meaningful sense.”

With these three authors, they all have the same opinion on the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, James Madison, and Plato all believed that having an absolute sovereign is what will make a society the most successful. This paper seeks to point out the distinct visons of absolute sovereignty that Hobbes, Madison, and Plato articulated by unpacking the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

Therefore, when Hobbes speaks of a state of nature, he is speaking of a state without a governing body. In the natural state, “Every man was continually engaged in a war against all other men (“bellum universale”)” (“The Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes”) in an effort to gain power (“Thomas Hobbes”). In Hobbes’s natural state, all men are equal insofar that each man is able to kill every other man, be it through sheer force, cunning, or by joining his power with others against a stronger foe (Williams). This “equality” leads Hobbes to claim that “there is no natural source of authority to order [men’s] lives together,” (Williams). Also in Hobbes’s bellum universale, “‘nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place [in the state of nature],’” (Williams). The combination of Hobbesian equality and lack of a universal moral system allow there for no agreed authority to decide if anyone’s actions are allowable or not. Unless “people share the same moral ideas…at the level of individual judgment,” (Williams), no conclusion may be arrived at. However, identical moral ideas for each and every judgment on each and every person are possible when political authority exists.

Very vaguely, the rule of law is: “the name commonly given to the state of affairs in which a legal system is legally in good shape.”

From the complex ideas introduced in the selected passage, Hobbes proceeds to construct a very significant yet disputable argument in which he encourages the need to submit ourselves to political authority. He justifies that although men are rational they are naturally self-interested and thus require the authority of a sovereign to govern them. The

Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.

Thomas Hobbes born in 1588, was an English political theorist who believed in Monarchy. Hobbes felt that humans, by nature were inherently selfish beings. During the English Civil war, he expressed the need for an absolute ruler. Like how a man has control over his household. To Hobbes, “without an absolute ruler people would kill each other” (Lawrence Smith Lecture). Due to humans being inherently selfish, they would risk the commonwealth of the community for themselves. This would likely cause complications in society and the social disorder. Hobbes conveyed that, “laws make people behave as civilized people” and without them, people