Political Application of Liberty and Rights

Political Application of Liberty and RightsThe concept of freedomA general definition of liberty or freedom defines it as immunity from subjective exercise of authority. However, philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century seem to explore deeper aspects of this concept. Among these philosophers atomic number 18 Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau, who held strong philosophies of liberty except somewhere along the line, their get a lines differed. To begin with, Hobbes presents two categories of freedom in a persuasive earthner where he argues that the archetypal category of freedom is granting individuals liberty to choose from alternatives, while the second category of freedom is freedom to approve individuals excerpt in an instance (Tuckness, 2002, p,105). Analysts asseverate that Hobbes concept of liberty or freedom is persuasive in nature because the philosopher argues that only the exercise of a power has the dexterity to reduce peoples freedom. In this case, Hobbes is a determinist because he perceives that any happenings including hu piece of music action is triggered by the effect of ancestral or unpreventable causes. Therefore, man exists in a state of withdrawn liberty because the law of nature determines it hence, freedom is of bittie use because it benefits no one and that whoever desires to live in freedom end up contradicting oneself (Tuckness, 2002, p, 105).Rousseau on his bug out brings forth two types of liberties that is to say, civil or moral liberty and indispensable liberty. He further explains that natural liberty is the freedom to influence personal desires, while civil liberty is the freedom to convince the general allow for (Tuckness, 2002, p, 105). Rousseau seems to dig deeper into freedom analysis where he explains that man is extremely free because the cruel state or fellow man does not dominate him nor does the spirituality of artificial needs that exist in the current association enslaves him. However, the scholar c laims that man is enslaving himself with needs, which result to the ills experienced in the society today.The concepts outlined by the two scholars present the incident that both of them deem similar perception on liberty besides they differ in the sentiency that Hobbes supports negative liberty, while Locke supports the negative side of it. Lockes positivity exhibits in the sense that he focuses on the positive aspects of what result the law can accomplish because it is only the law that do not restrict freedom (Tuckness, 2002, p, 105). However, this is the tear by dint of which digressions chip in because Hobbes claims that law restricts peoples many choices hence, restricting them from freedom (Tuckness, 2002, p, 105). However, he advocates for this kind of freedom by asserting that people should learn how to part with much liberty in order to acquire security and peace.Political application of the theoryThe two authors seem to disagree on political application of liberty theory. Hobbes believes that liberties must comply and surrender to a self-directed in order to flee the state of nature (Tuckness, 2002, p, 106). He further argues that the government should just pass rules that govern the society in order to curb human conflicts and that no one should interfere with the governments business. Hobbes meant that as long as people had basic freedom, acquired after letting go of the much-needed freedom, adhering to the government laws was not a hard task. This is the reason why the philosopher argued that equality is established in cartel form between people and not between people and milkweed butterflyty hence, denying the many the decision making process. Conclusively, Hobbes meant to simplify that people should embrace a little liberty as long as their existed security and peace and grant the sovereign liberty to rule them.Rousseau on his part claims that the most implicit in(p) object glass of any government is to allow its citizens exercise freedom. Therefore, the endorsement and existence of certain government codes can grant a certain level of freedom to the society. In this regard, the philosopher meant that the government should not be extremely rigid towards its people in terms of passing laws that could lead to enslavement but rather should advocate for the societys views and opinions in order to foster the needed freedom (Tuckness, 2002, p, 106). Unlike Hobbes who advocates for sovereign powers to restrict peoples freedom, Rousseau seems to advocate for equity and coordination between the sovereign and its people as a form of liberty.The concept of justifiedlysAccording to Hobbes, rightfields are liberty to do things without facing any sort of restriction and that Man is equal to the different. The philosopher outlines two types of rights namely basic and civil rights, where basic right is the right to cloth, shelter, food and other basic needs, while civil right is the right to freedom of expression, life a nd other fundamental rights (Edmundson, 2012, p, 23). However, a deeper perspective reflects that Hobbes generalizes the concept of rights on a social platform because he differs with the manner in which rights apply between society and the government. whoremonger Lockes philosophy concerning rights is reviewed in a wider dimension because he believes that human beings are entitled to every necessary right that include the right to live, the right to freedom among other rights (Edmundson, 2012, p, 24). Unlike Hobbes who believes in social rights, Locke differs greatly because he believes that man should posses the right to dominate the society in every means possible. The difference between the two scholars is that Locke involves rights with larger moral complexity compared to Hobbes who views rights as doing whatever one pleased for their deliver survival.Political application of the rights conceptHobbes clarify that sovereign should guards peoples rights but in a shallow dimensi on because he advocates for government control over its citizens (Edmundson, 2012, p, 24). The reason why the philosopher argues that government should safeguard its people is because people undergo different aspects of conflicts that in one way or another will need superior intervention. The purpose of government at this point is to advocate for equality in the social context because it will ensure that peoples enacted rights are safeguarded (Edmundson, 2012, p, 24). However, sovereign safeguarding of rights occurs due to peoples inferiority and lack of adequate liberty to safeguard their own rights. Hobbes advocates for this type of liberty and the right to protection where the sovereign is the overall determiner of what rights befits the society. This concept drives to the fact that ordinary citizens will suffer because what the sovereign decides is final because no involvement or negotiations between the two parties exist. Therefore, Hobbes political theory of rights is problema tic because it enhances absolute bowing of sovereignty above the rights of millions of people in the society (Edmundson, 2012, p, 24). The philosopher further asserts that once the government is in place, people have no right to criticize or change its form hence, defying peoples right to freedom of expression.Locke seems to dispute Hobbes view on sovereignty and rights because he believed that people had numerous rights that they could safeguard without the dictatorship of the sovereign. Among these rights is the right to challenge the government, which further grants people the right to overthrow an oppressive government (Edmundson, 2012, p, 24). This clarifies the fact that peoples rights should not face any sovereign dictatorship but rather the sovereign should grant its people the right to criticize injustices from any horizon including their rulers because they possess the liberty to do so. The two philosophers differ greatly because Hobbes advocates for the sovereign safegu arding peoples rights while Locke believes in peoples empowerment to the extent that they can fight for their own rights.The concept of private postLock held strong views on prop institution due to its importance to humankind and sacredness. Locke begins by reminding everyone that God the creator gave the world to man to dominate it and no one has an elite claim to anything. However, different versions of laws and policies have modified Gods will by allowing man to share the properties of the world according to sovereign records and codes. These institutions grant human beings the right to situation because it is the fruit of their labor. In this regard, Locke advocates for the right to own private property through labor and hard work. More so, the scholar advocates for heredity form of property ownership where an individual should not only acquire property through labor but also acquire it through inheritance (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216). This clarifies the point that man has funda mental objectives in the society that include ownership of property because it is beneficial to both the society and the sovereign. Locks theory of property resulted from the reason that man mixes his labor with then earth in order to acquire as much as he needs.On the other hand, Karl Marx held a different view on property ownership because he advocated for its abolishment in all possible means. On his argument, Marx believed that a community should exercise equality in the sense that the community should not undergo any form of separation in form of signifieres. Resources that include private property ownership bring about these clan variations within the society (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216). Marx argued that private property ownership oppressed the poor and should not be encouraged. The communist further differs with Lockes view on property ownership as mans own labor because he argues that man did not acquire property through labor, but rather became a victim of this property beca use it ended up exploiting them (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216). Marx wished to see equity especially on the amount of labor applied as well as its reward system because as much as he faced critics concerning mans labor to acquire property, he saw a vacuum through which workers would face exploitation (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216).This leads to the conclusion that the two philosophers greatly differed on property ownership concept because Locke perceived property ownership as the main fundamental aspect to both the government and the society. This is the reason why he advocated for property ownership right and looked forward to a period when all citizens would acquire their own property. Marx on his perspective argues that property ownership does not necessarily imply to home or land ownership as perceived by many, but rather as a means of production, that ended up contributing to unequal distribution of wealth and exploitation of many. Therefore, as much as Locke campaigned for property owner ship, Marx called upon its abolition.Political application of the private property conceptConcerning legislative, Locke argues that the government should not interfere with an individuals property without his consent irrespective of the existing constitution (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216). Such government involvement arises in form of taxes, where the philosopher argues that sovereign should not inflict tax payments on property owners if possible. Locke further argues that government should adhere to the will of the people by meeting their vast needs that include empowerment to acquire property rather than oppressing them through taxation.Marx on the other hand did not contribute much on issues concerning the government but he still depicted his mistrust in it. This came up because Marx claimed that most of the ruling class in the society supported the government and vice versa. This leads to the notion that the government will not foster the much-needed change in the society in terms of class equity but rather the solution lies on the society itself. Therefore, property ownership has led to social class emergence that even the government cannot dish out equate hence, abolition of private property seemed to be Marxs final option (Bhargava, 2008, p, 216). Conclusively, the two scholars seem to agree on governments inefficiency in handling property ownership issues and the impact it inflicts towards the society.ReferencesBhargava, R. (2008). Political Theory. Pearson Longman.Edmundson, W. A. (2012). An introduction to rights. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Tuckness, A. S. (2002). Locke and the legislative point of view Toleration, contested principles, and law. Princeton, N.J Princeton University Press.