Le click droit n'est pas autorisé.

Laissez votre message

* Merci de remplir ce champ *

25 rue de la morinerie
37700 st Pierre des corps

Si vous désirez passer, contactez moi avant au 06 16 73 11 54

An Agreement Between Citizens And The Government Is A

Non classé / No Comment / 8 avril 2021

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) described, in his powerful treatise The Social Contract of 1762, another version of the theory of social contract as the basis of political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps the freest people in the world at the time, he did not accept their representative government. Rousseau believed that freedom was only possible if the people as a whole governed directly through legislation, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. However, he also stated that people often did not know their « true will » and that a true society would only occur when a great leader (« the legislator ») was born to change people`s values and customs, probably through the strategic use of religion. Consent – citizens may agree to give certain freedoms to the Authority/Rule of the Rule of Law to achieve a performance such as security/order The theory of an implied social contract is that, by remaining in the territory controlled by a society that normally has a government, people agree to join that society and, if necessary, to be governed by their government. This approval gives legitimacy to such a government. According to the contract will theory, a contract is not considered valid unless all parties consent voluntarily or expressly, without coercion. In his essay No Treason, Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and a staunch defender of the law of contracts between individuals, argued that an alleged social contract could not be used to justify state acts such as taxation, because the government would take measures of violence against anyone who does not want to enter into such a contract. Therefore, such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all. While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke, in his second government, argued for inviolable freedom under the law. Locke argued that the legitimacy of a government of the citizen delegation to the government by its absolute right to violence (while retaining the inalienable right to self-defense or « self-preservation ») as well as elements of other rights (e.g.B. Property will be taxable) to the extent necessary to achieve the security objective, by granting the state a monopoly of violence, the government, as an impartial judge, can use the collective force of the population to administer and enforce the law, instead of each man acting as his own judge, juror and executioner – the condition in the state of nature.

[Citation required] Rousseau`s striking phrase that man must be « obliged to be free »[16] should be understood in this way: since indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, an individual, if he falls back into his ordinary selfishness and does not obey the law, will be obliged to listen to what was decided when the people acted as collective (citizen).

Comments are closed.