Locke's & Hobbes' Critiques: Do I Agree or Disagree?
Critiques of Thomas Hobbes:
- Absolute dictators are often overthrown.
- A sovereign violates individual rights extensively.
- Absolute power corrupts.
- Strong men in the commonwealth will seek to remove sovereign by force.
My Opinion:
Nothing good can come from a king who has all the power. A government needs to be established in order to divide all that power, that way no one can abuse it. When someone or a group has too much power, they eventually start violating people’s rights. When people feel like they aren’t being treated correctly, they will revolt putting the country in a crisis. For example in North Korea, the current president has way too much power, which leads to the oppression of the people, making them have no say in what happens to their country. While in America, there is a division of power among branches, which is why our system of government has survived for so long.
Critiques of John Locke:
- Consensus is often too hard to reach.
- Elected representatives are more interested in getting re-elected than peoples rights.
- Getting elected is expensive.
- Electorate is often ill informed.
My Opinion:
First of all, consensus doesn’t have to be hard to reach, as long as you have an odd number of people, there will be a majority rules. Additionally, not all representatives are corrupt, many care about the people, and just because there are some who are corrupt it doesn’t mean we should resort back to a sovereign. Even though getting elected is expensive, many are still willing to do it for the good of their country so there are always candidates. And lastly, the people always know when and how to vote and are given information about the candidates, so saying the electorate are ill-informed is a weak argument. Countries are better off with a government with a balance of power than one person/group that controls all.

Comments
Post a Comment