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