John Locke and Edmund Burke and Karl Marx on the Role of the State - Essay Example

Discussions by John Locke, Edmund Burke and Karl Marx on the role of the The discussions between John Locke, Edmund Burke and Karl Mark focused on the role of state with each person highlighting on his views in regard to the role of government. John Locke on one hand, articulate on issues concerning the general public with a main focus on toleration. According to Locke, it is imperative for the state not to limit the religious practices or beliefs. John’s epistemology focuses on the argument against the state imposing its beliefs on other people. Instead, John Locke in the discussion with the Edmund Burke and Karl Marx revolves around an insistence on accommodating divergent views. John Locke, believes in the perception of moral truths considered to result in a strong political implication. In a focus on toleration, John Locke highlights on the division of state and the church since it is not possible for the state to force moral behavior (Norman 68). The separation, would lead to free speech because of individuals exercising free thought. The separation according to Locke, needs to be absolute in terms of the state only focusing on civil concernments. The power by the state according to John Locke, should only focus on the outward force. However, religion provides an inward persuasion related to individual’s mind. On the other hand, the state’s actions in relation to imprisonment, confiscating estates or torments cannot manipulate the inward judgment of individual’s world views. Locke reiterates that, understanding the truth needs a volitional interaction between reality and a person’s mind. In essence, Locke in the discussion, asserts the need to separate the government or state force and the mind. In addition since the volitional relationship only exist between one’s mind and the reality, then, it means the political leaders have no authority to compel their opinions or thoughts on other people (Norman 72). As explained by John Locke, the state should exist to protect the rights of its citizens, but not to compel public morality. In regard to civil government, John Locke asserts that, the political power denotes the privilege of enacting laws that are supported through a threat of force. However, it is impossible to provide evidence of a person’s right to political power as a result of one’s lineage or ancestry. The formation of government through ancestry or following a lineage result in a draconian rule and in turn, exacerbate civil disorder(Norman 74). An alternative means is important in choosing political leaders and should focus on understanding men’s relationships with one another prior to the establishment of a government. The relationship, should focus the state of nature since, within a state of nature, every man that possess free will or reason has an independent mind and by implication, is also politically equal and independent. Locke suggests that, being endowed with similar faculties and co-existing in the same community of nature, then issues of subordination that result in the destruction of one another, should not exist. While contrasting individual’s state in relation to nature, John Locke also highlights on the war that may arise because of disobeying the law of nature. These state of war, is a threat to the lives of persons on whom it has been imposed and results in the need to exercise self-defense. Locke further suggests that, men often focus in establishing a civil society by voluntarily, relinquishing their personal right to defend themselves against the established public authority. This often occurs as a result of searching for a mutual protection of individual’s liberties and property (Norman 78). As a result, the laws related to the state emanate from individuals consent to the establishment of a government authority. As maintained by Locke, the appropriate functions of the law involves establishing , but not limiting individual freedom since, the state does not exist to limit freedoms related to the rational being. The state authority should exist to enhance and preserve individual freedom. As viewed by Locke, the law should exist in restricting other persons from violation other people’s freedoms. The powers of a government needs to emanate from the citizens, as a result of their consent in the formation of such a government (Theodore 2). Locke reiterates that a proper government operates based on three separate powers that includes the federative power related to the commonwealth, the executive and the legislative. In addition, Locke also discusses the right of citizens to rise against tyrannies (Theodore 4). On the other hand, Edmund Burke discusses the need to establish a representative government that caters for all citizens in terms of pursuing common good and not the constituent opinions. Edmund argues that for a government where the elected representatives are provided the task of voting in relation to their own views or judgment, for purposes of creating a common good instead of relying on the opinion of the electorate. However, this form of government as argued by Edmund, can easily result in the alienation the general population instead of alienating the public opinion. The public opinion, is often volatile in regard to the determination of policies meant to benefit the nation as a whole (Muldoon 192). On the same note, an absence of representatives of the people in government, could create problems. In essence, the government should familiarize itself with the needs of its citizens so as to maintain an appropriate definition related to protecting the national interest. However, Edmund Burke points out the impediments to reasoning while, at the same time supporting the importance of intuition. Burke mainly focuses on conservatism and views colonialism as radical and dangerous while also considering democracy as being detrimental to social stability. Burke further views the governmental conventions as being spiritually based and needs not to be altered. Burke also disregard the existence of equality on earth and the state derives its authority from virtuous principles and not as a result of a social contract (Muldoon 192). Despite advocating for a virtuous democracy, some of Burke’s ideologies seems to be on the contrary to modern sensibilities. True democracy may not exist in the society today and is evident by some countries introducing a system that is almost similar to a “true democracy”. In countries such as the United States, the use of Electoral College is seen as the ideal safeguard against democracy and serve to protect citizens against their own folly. When democracy becomes dangerous, Burke explains that, the upper class should take the mantle of leadership. This is a group considered well educated, rich and able to avoid corrupt deeds (Mitchell 450). However, such a representation also has its shortcomings since power and riches does not protect against corruption. On the other hand, raising a virtuous democracy is possible in a culture where, personal responsibility, intelligence and virtues are cherished. Essentially, Burke’s arguments referring to God and the state, is mainly influenced by Providence and is not a deterrent to individuals who believe in separating the state and church. The discussion by Edmund in regard to conservatism raises issues that also impact on the society today and requires an open mind to understand such issues and their impact on the society (Mitchell 451). In the same discussion, Karl Marx pointed out on the bourgeois state and its implication in the society and argues against the need to maintain the status quo. In bourgeois state, individuals are at liberty to pursue personal interests at the expense of fellow citizens. While, the state on the other hand, only focuses on the general interests and is above the civil society in terms of acting as a limiting force and providing the framework in which the competition among individuals takes place. Marx is against this idea in the sense that, he views the state as an important factor in social life. As a result, the society should not be divided in terms of the civilians and the state because, this creates a situation where, the functions of the state are administered against the society (McQuillan 84). Marx reiterates that state administration that includes the government organs should not be viewed as representing the civil society since, it only focus on universal interests of its own , by representing the state. Marx further suggests that, bureaucrats undertaking state activities rely on general powers provided by the state to advance their own interests. Further denunciation by Marx in regard to a competitive society, highlights on the social inequality that results of a competitive society. As a result, Marx proposes a democracy that embraces a social form where the society is responsible for its own universal interests. According to Marx, the working class considered as popular, is ideal for purposes of enhancing a rationally planned economy and the elimination of the bourgeois class. In the event that the majority workers gain political power, this will contribute in the elimination of bureaucratic hierarchies and force the state to improve the economic needs of the workers (Zilbersheid 22). In general, while comparing the discussion between John Locke, Edmund Burke and Karl Marx, all the philosophy discusses the role of state in advocating for freedom, equality and democracy. John Locke stresses on the need to allow for free will and not compelling citizens to laws enforces by the state and of importance, is also the argument on the separation of the state and the church. Edmund Burke on his part focuses on a virtuous democracy which is only possible in a society where people are intellectuals, virtuous and wealthy. However, the society today exhibits a wide gap between the wealthy and the disadvantaged in the society. As a result, it is almost impossible for a virtuous democracy to work in many parts across the globe. Further, delegating power to the privileged class in the society, tend to exacerbate corruption since, this persons will use their positions to amass more wealth. On the contrary, Karl Marx provided a more logical argument in terms of dealing with in equality within the society. This involves an effort of abolishing a bourgeois state and creating a society where resources are equally distributed. Further, Karl Marx is right about a competitive society that disregard a fairness and the majority working class should be catered for in regard to their economic needs. Works Cited McQuillan, Martin. Marx and Ideology. Routledge Critical Thinkers, 2001. Print. Mitchell, L.G. Edmund Burke and Ireland: Aesthetics, Politics and the Colonial Sublime. Notes & Queries 51.4 (2004): pp. 450-451. Print. Muldoon, Andrew. The English National Character: The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair. Journal of British Studies 47.1 (2008): pp. 192-193. Print. Norman, Davies. How States Die. New England Review 32.4 (2011): pp. 68-77. Print. Theodore, Waldman. Of Civil Government. World Philosophers & Their Works, 2000. Print. Zilbersheid, Uri. The Idea of Abolition of Labor in Socialist Utopian Thought. Utopian Studies 13.1 (2002):pp. 21-22. Print. Read More