"When fathers get used to let the children when the son no longer take account of their words, when teachers and their students in awe prefer flatter, when finally the young despise the laws because that they no longer recognize, above them the authority of anyone, so this is in any youth and beauty, the beginning of tyranny. "Plato (fourth century BC. JC)
The People of France never both expressed willingness to both destroy at once the "privileges" of those who work and earn money when there are so many job seekers, and resurrection of a strong state, omni controller, protector to the extreme.
The resignation of so many parents face the kinds of crime or rebellion of their children, curious attitude of teachers and teachers in meeting their obligations to seniors and educators, critics permanent, recurrent, redundant any decision of Justice by the very people who claim to want a more egalitarian social order and respect freedom and therefore barriers that protect them, while it shows much more than a social unrest or an anxiety about the economic future.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his famous Leviathan, already analyzed in his time, four centuries ago, contractarian theories defining the role of the state and the social contract based the foundations of society Preparedness.
For Hobbes, man is sociable, not by nature but by accident. The state of nature is the state of the "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes ). Hobbes says (repeating Plautus) that "man is wolf to man "(Homo homini lupus). The state of nature must not be understood as describing a historical reality, but as a theoretical fiction. There has perhaps never existed, but it is a fruitful philosophical hypothesis, a construct of the mind that seeks to understand what brings social existence (Leviathan, XIII). This state represents what would be the man, regardless of any political power, and therefore any law. In this state, men are governed solely by self-preservation - that Hobbes calls "conatus" or desire.
But the state of nature men are equal, which means they have the same passions, the same rights to all things, and the same resources - by deception or by marriage - to achieve (Leviathan, XIII). Everyone wants what is legitimately good for him. Everyone tries to do good and everyone is the sole judge of the means to achieve it. This is why men often tend to conflict with each other to get what they deem good for them.
anarchic power of the multitude dominates the state of nature. Endowed with reason, that is to say, the ability to calculate and anticipate, the man provides the danger, and attack before being attacked. The man with the weakest of the ruse could prevail over the stronger (Leviathan, XIII). Everyone is so confident of being able to prevail over others and does not hesitate to attack him to take his property. Ephemeral alliances are formed to override an individual. But hardly a victory is it acquired the winners conspire against each other to benefit only the loot.
This war is so terrible that mankind may even disappear. To those who think that this vision of humanity is pessimistic Hobbes replies that even where the social state Yet there are laws, police force, judges, however, we close our chests and key to our homes for fear of being robbed (Leviathan, XIII). But the state of nature is without law, without a judge and without police ... It is the fear of death (violent death) that result from natural equality, is responsible for the state of war imposes on the lives of all a constant threat. This state, fundamentally wrong, does not prosperity, trade, science, arts, society (Leviathan, XIII).
The "laws of nature" (Chapter XIV and XV) are dictated by reason, and lead limiting the natural right of everyone on everything. The first and fundamental law of nature is to look for peace and not to seek the help of war if the first is impossible to obtain. These natural laws are eternal and immutable
[5] because they are based on rationality. But they must be applied by all. To get there, "said Hobbes, it is necessary to renounce certain rights, for nothing can ensure compliance by all of the natural law. This is where the social contract theory (Hobbes himself does not use that exact phrase).
This will establish a priori
Vital is a contract between individuals, which helps establish sovereignty. Under this contract, each transfers all his natural rights, with the exception of the Inalienable Rights, a "person" who is called the Sovereign, the depository of the State, or Leviathan. Everyone becomes "subject" of Sovereign, becoming too "
author" of all acts of the sovereign. Under this contract, the multitude of individuals is reduced to the unity of sovereign
"The only way to establish such a common power capable of defending humans against foreign invasions and injuries committed to some by others, (...), is to gather all their power and their full force on a man or an assembly of men who may, by majority vote, to reduce all their wills to a single will, which amounts to say, appoint a man, or assembly of men, increasing their person, and everyone recognizes and endorses himself being the author of any action taken or caused by the person bringing them, and subject to these things which concern the common peace and security, hence, all and each of them submit their wills to his will, and their judgments to his trial. This is more than consent or concord : This is a real unity of all in a single person, made by agreement of everyone with everyone, so it's as if each individual had to say to everyone: I allow this man or this assembly of men, and I gave up my right to govern myself in this condition it that you abandoned your claim and all its authorized shares in the same way "[]
The contract is more than mere consent because it aims to establish a "common power" capable of keeping people in check, requiring compliance with agreements by fear of punishment and the criminal sanction. Contracts with each individual to transfer its sovereign rights to hold them all. The only inalienable rights are those designed to protect his life: one can not alienate the "right to resist those who attack you to take your life, nor to resist those who want to imprison you or put you in irons (Chapter XIV).
However, in this first decade of the twenty-first century, all the conditions exist to emerge again, but in practice this time, the idea of a welfare state, even more, that of a World Order.
Then who will or should be " ruler "of this world order?
Whatever the indecisive thoughts of "human hommistes" which follow on television sets, the Security Council the UN is not, by essence, able to ensure that governance .
While still there?
We have the choice between an envoy of God came to earth to rule all people according to religious law that will overcome any form of social contract, such as Allah or his representative, or a "Super President" endowed with all powers and equipped with all weapons. Man providential ideal world, concentrating in his hands all the "forces of good" ... The election
B. OBAMA in the White House looks a bit like a foreshadowing of this scenario of political fiction, and few people in the world today, among those whose state enables the son of concern, regret this historic turning point in our history As there is great hope, through this symbol but also the emergence of the beginnings of a real dialogue between the major powers, beginning with those of G 20, a consensual path toward a new form of balance.
however, and getting back to our starting point for exacerbations of the French people, this requires that the reason it is established and straighten parents, teachers, advocates of positive law.
Hopefully.
0 comments:
Post a Comment