Hobbes videva solmente un sol limitation licite
sur le potentia de un soverano: Ille non debeva
mandar le destruction del population que ille
controlava. E si ille non poteva provider lo con
un ambiente protegite, le gente que ille controlava
non habeva ulle obligation a obedir le.
Spinosa esseva de accordo con Hobbes. Ma pro ille
(sin dubito proque ille mesme esseva un philosopho)
le scoppo del tranquillitate imponite per un
governamento (sia per un sol homine, sia per un
gruppo de illes) esseva permitter que philosophos
como ille studiava le mundo pro comprender lo sin
esser molestate per gente irrational, e ille non
credeva in un stato democratic.
Le rolo del religion, ille credeva, esseva adjuvar
le governamento a supprimer le menacias al ordine
public per un publico incapace de pensar rationalmente
e qui possibilemente prevenirea que le intellectuales
e le scientistas continua lor travalio de comprender
le mundo e diriger le evolution del societate.
Le historia de tragedias human a causa de reges
inepte, del ruina economic, etc., presentava le
problema importante de determinar qui debeva regnar
e como. Le reges hobbesian e spinozan rapidemente
poteva devenir tyrannos qui inaugurarea politicas
que destruerea societates e vitas personal. E
cognoscimentos historic de governamentos fallite
causava le emergentia del conviction que le potentia
de reges debeva esser limitate de alicun maniera.
In vice de vider le base de societe como un contracto
de domination inter un soverano plenipotente e un
populo terrificate, Locke credeva que le contracto
social debeva esser inter personas coequal qui voleva
un systema social que protegerea lor benes e que
anque les protegerea physicamente. Le personas
qui governava un tal societate solmente poterea
governar lo con le consentimento de illes que illes
governava. Sin un tal consentimento, le opposition
al governmento, mesmo al puncto de un revolution,
esserea licite.
Secundo Locke un tal governmento deberea esser un
republica governate per representatives qui esserea
democraticamente elegite. Ben que un rege poteva
esser le soverano, ille solmente poterea regnar
con un parlamento cuje membros sempre poterea esser
reimplaciate per nove membros in nove electiones.
Un tal governamento non garantirea le melior
decisiones, ma ille credeva que illo poterea evitar
alicunes ex le pejor possibilitates.
---
Hobbes envisioned only a single legitimate limitation
on the power of a sovereign: He could not order
the destruction of the people that he controlled.
And if he could not provide his people with a
protected
environment, they had no obligation to obey him.
Spinosa agreed with Hobbes. But for him (no doubt
because he himself was a philosopher) the purpose
of the tranquillity imposed by a government (whether
by a single man or by a group of them) was to allow
philosophers like him to study the world to understand
it without being bothered by irrational people,
and he did not believe in a democratic state.
The role of religion, he believed, was to help the
government suppress the threats to public order
by a public incapable of thinking rationally who
would possibly keep intellectuals and scientists
from continuing their work of understanding the
world and directing the evolution of society.
The history of human tragedy because of inept kings,
economic ruin, etc., presented the important problem
of determining who should reign and how. Hobbesian
and Spinozan kings could rapidly become dictators
who would inaugurate policies that would destroy
societies and personal lives. And historical
knowledge
of failed governments gave rise to the conviction
that the power of kings should be limited in some
way.
Instead of seeing the basis of society as a contract
between an all-powerful sovereign and a terrified
populace, Locke believed that the social contract
should be among equals who wanted a social system
that would protect their property and would also
protect them physically. The people governing such
a society would only be able to govern with the
consent of the people they governed. Without such
consent, opposition to the government, even to the
point of revolution, was legitimate.
According to Locke, such a government should be
a republic governed by representatives that would
be democratically elected. Though a king could
be the sovereign, he could reign only with a
parliament whose members could always be replaced by
new members in new elections. Such a government would
not guarantee the best decisions, but he thought that
it would avoid some of the worst possibilities.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
|
