As comparing all the theories I agree with Rousseau because I think his argument is more practical and acceptable, according to him going back to state of nature is not desirable so government should make laws and polices that would treat all people equally.He says that at that time population was less and resources were in excess but later when population increased it caused competition so people entered into contract and concept of 'state' was raised. His reason for 'state' is somehow acceptable but I strongly disagree with Locke because property is a serious issue and one couldn't claim it by utilizing it for goods, I mean if today at some place at Lums i cultivate some vegetables , does it mean that land belong to me ? Locke further states that men venture out of 'the state of nature' because they wanted the protection of their property. I don't think this is a solid reason to form government.
Talking about Hobbes I want to say that I disagree with him because according to him state have absolute authority over people , this is wrong as there should be democracy people should have right to protest against its government.
1 comment:
I think you raise some interesting points, but it would have been more helpful if you had focused your attention on a specific point and explained in more depth. For example your argument about how Rousseau's state of nature is impractical and therefore a government should equitably deal with all of its citizens is a persuasive one, but it would have been nice if you had spent a bit more time unpacking this specific issue rather than trying to talk about all of the authors.
Post a Comment