Student charged for writing violent essay

(Midterm - Political Philosophy - hand written in class - 75 min)

"Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse Tung

All political power, whether held by a Sovereign or the People, is based upon the will, and the ability, of that power to justly use coercion. Hobbes, Machiavelli and Locke differ on this point only in a matter of degrees.

Hobbes' Sovereign, as created or appointed by the social leviathan, is the most aggressive, uncontrolled and uncontrollable of the forms of governance, given supreme and capricious authority over the people. Because of Hobbes' vision of implied consent, the Sovereign is justly allowed to follow any personal version of morality in dealings with the people, including unrestrained utilitarianism. Such an arbitrarily governed society cannot last because of the innate undefinability of "good" and the inevitability of revolt, however unjust Hobbes may think it.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, is smart enough to presume the people know the difference between 'good' rulers and 'bad' rulers. In Machiavelli's view, a 'good' ruler is one who is 'not hated', and infers that a hated ruler is due for, and should expect, revolution. What he fails to take into account, however, is the general population's inability to distinguish 'justifi-ed/able' cruelty from arbitrary cruelty. His assertion that men remember and hold grudges longer over the usurpation of property than over personal aggression/insult holds only tenuously true about the monied classes. The poor and dispossessed have nothing to lose but their miserable lives, so they take cruelty far more to heart than he supposes. If the Prince is unable to ensure his cruelty is limited, or reasonably justifiable, he will engender the hatred of the proles and suffer downfall by them. In short, the Prince's use of cruelty creates and maintains order, but may still be arbitrary and unjust - even is seemingly acceptably justified. Machiavelli also assumes that for good governance the Prince will realize these facts and act accordingly. This includes developing his system in such a was as to incorporate the power of the people into his rule by using the 'best' aspects of each of the three 'good', but short lived, forms of government to create something better.

Locke would agree, especially, and so long as, the government does not usurp personal property in any way. Again, Locke assumes the right of the people to defend themselves from aggression through coercive force. However, the magistrate under Locke is also restrained from cruelty by Law. The rule of law creates order in society by providing a point of appeal other than to 'heaven' in dealing with injustice ex-post-facto. This does not, however, prevent the people from 'appealing to heaven' should the government cease to perform its duties of the common defense of the common good justly.

*Rousseau takes this view of the common good to one further extreme, and, in fact, nearly returns to Hobbes' ultimate utilitarianism and the rule of the mob. He flatly discounts Machiavelli's notion that the best form of government is a mixed government and takes the absolutist view that whatever form is chosen by society then that must be used in its' pure form. Whatever the form, the common good is the ultimate goal and may be upheld any way the government sees fit.*

A "good" society, and government, realizes the balance between liberty and order when the use of coercion is both limited and justified by reasonable application of an ethical continuum based upon what actions will cause the least harm to society. Such a government will "strive not to be hated", but will also establish a conscientious and reasonable rule of law which will, through the separation of powers, outlive the Prince or even the Aristocracy. The key to this balance is in ensuring the few laws written are designed for the expressed purpose delineating the coercion allowed by and to the government for specific acts. Arbitrary and capricious usurpation of property occurs when laws are directed at things, because one cannot coerce a thing, only persons. Order will not long survive the rule of law when it applies to things because, with the usurpation of property, liberty fades and hatred ensues.