Kant's Political Writings - Essay Example

Kant’s Political Writings The highest ity has to be just in all manners, but originate from man himself. This is the sixth proposition according to Kant. He further explains that as people, we have a tendency to follow a leader in our pursuit for stability and normalcy in society. However, our choice of leadership may not always be right and appropriate since as men we tend to be wrong at times due to our human nature. Nonetheless, a leader is always needed and we must submit to them irrespective of whether we agree with them fully or not. This was the origin of the supreme rule among men. It was the only way to establish law and order in any social setting irrespective of where that rule comes from. It is therefore an offense to go against the rule of law by organizing any form of resistance to the leaders in authority. Such an action is deemed offensive and should be punished according to the constitution in place. If anyone is against any law or figure of authority, they should find a constitutionally recognized way of placing their complaints without disorganizing or trying to forcefully overrule the structure of power. His approach to leadership in any social setting points to dictatorship and democratic doctrines. These principles cannot coexist hand in hand since one form will take over the other in time. However, these doctrines are beneficial to men in their quest to find stability in their day to day lives. I support his ideology on this subject matter since he gives some pointers to its advantages. He takes us back to the laws of nature that govern the animal and plant kingdoms. According to his third proposition, our full capabilities are only realized when in an organized group and not as an individual. This is because we are social creatures. He gives us an example of trees trying to collectively seek for air and light for their growth and other trees that do not participate in this union but go off on their own. The latter trees grow to be strong and blossom fully while the former do not grow to their full potential. The value of group association is enhanced since it comes with great benefits to the individuals joined in the venture. This does not come easy since they will be some problems experienced in one way or the other. These deviations are to be expected since peace comes with a price. This should be dealt with constitutionally as the people look to the greater picture of a centralized form of governance. The leaders should be capable of providing for its citizens and especially for those unable to do so. It then acquires the right to tax its citizens in a bid to avail certain resources for its entire people. This right to tax should not be abused but used for the greater good of its entire people. The people are then given some privileges by the constitution such as those of voting, legal ownership of property and the right to freedom. The right to rule conferred upon the state is given to it by its citizens. This power should be supreme and the means to an end. The leader should be then having more authority than the people he is ruling over. He can lead his people to a resistance but he must have made claim to his actions and offer protection to his subjects. This resistance could be against the constitution or a part of it. This form of defiance could be unconstitutional since it points to the leader of the resistance as the Supreme authority yet he is meant to be a tool to follow through with the rule of law. This goes against Kant’s principles as it means that there is a flaw in the constitutional framework of the society. This is even graver when a coup is staged by the people who are meant to be subjects upholding the legality of the leadership they choose. Instead they should be able to stage complaints in the most peaceful of manners and if that approach fails, then submitting to the law would come in handy. In the case scenario of the murder of the leader as was seen in the execution of Charles I, there was the deviation from the rule of law and even rendering it irrelevant. It is as if the people are their own judges and have taken it upon themselves to make things right instead of relying on the structures of governance. They have committed an offense to themselves and the state thus rendering them the death penalty as a punishment for their actions. Force is not the proper path to take when all else has failed since it crumbles the stability of the leadership. This act is regarded as treason and death is the ultimate end. This is because there was no public law to allow for such a move by its people and no justification whatsoever. The actions of the leader are not held accountable to not only his people but also to the law hence he is considered right in his governance even though his people may not agree with him. He is only but performing the duties conferred to him by the very people who elected him into power. This could be termed as a revolution on the part of the subjects. On the third proposition, Kant talks of the freedom of will of all men and their reason to matters. He says that by nature we are entitled to do as we please especially when it comes to making choices concerning our well being. We are however entitled by way of reason to make suitable decisions that will govern our way of life in the end. This is because by our natural instincts, we tend to let things happen to us before we can take up action against them. Therefore, our environment provides us with uncomfortable situations which we are meant to tackle so as to come back to the norm. This keeps us on our toes in the general course of life. Our happiness comes second in the course of our lives since we are to achieve it by the consequences of our action governed by reason. A revolution thus goes against this principle and its outcomes can be far outreached and felt to later generations. Today’s actions then could be said to be actualized and benefited by those who come after us. Most of the structures existing today are usually as a result of people coming together for a greater good or to be heard in one way or the other, giving an example of the French Revolution. An explanation is thus given on the supremacy of a leader to his people. He is to be the person that upholds the integrity of the laws of the land and all the property of the land. He acts as a vessel held accountable by the rule of law and with powers to execute law. The use of the land is his sole responsibility and is expected to be used for the good of all people even though they are the rightful owners. He unifies their property in a broader perspective and the people are said to be his subjects. This is the basis of the idea of a civil union. Nomads are then an exception to this reasoning since they have no ownership of land. In their case, their leader has no right to any domain but at the same time he has ownership over everything else since he decides who gets what. This reasoning gives certain groups of people the right to own property indefinitely by virtue of laws allowing them to do so. This is seen in the case of churches or a certain class of people. Their ownership is allowed by the law as long as they followed the protocol required. However, pressure from the public could lead to the loss of such ownership especially when such institutions are deemed irrelevant. This could be in the case of military influence going against the wishes of the people, who are then able to rightfully deprive them of such a privilege. The issue of taxation is again brought up as the leader demands a certain fee from those who privately own land. This can be in the form of land fees of various forms or a service in the military depending again on the laws in place. This gives an opportunity for other people to be recruited in the work of enforcing these demands of state to the people. This could be said to be the origin of taxation in today’s society. However, this setting has brought up issues of oppression to some people who feel that they are overtaxed by their own governments who were meant to protect their interests. Another form of state preservation is in the form of police administration. This institution is meant to provide protection to its people by ensuring the enforcement of all laws by the every person concerned so that law and order is maintained. They give the state the freedom to concentrate on matters of state without interference from the general public, usually as public demonstrations provide. Right to inspection is also another form of state preservation meant to protect the interests of the leader and his government. it requires that no form of organized groups should influence the public to any form of action without them getting the authorization of the police. The state has the right to stop their activities and take over whatever they may believe to be a danger to the public. The whole concept then points to politics as an important form of governance in any society. Kant emphasizes that they should be based upon principles of right and created for the good of the public, in a bid to prevail justice. They are to have laws so that one does not cross a line in exercising their power leading to instability of the social setup. These laws should not force people to perform their duties but they should be a means of informing them of the right course of action. It gives venue for the person to be feeling free to do as they please but in the constraints of looking out for the welfare of other people. This freedom seen also in the right to property should not create problems with other members of society as it can lead to unnecessary conflict of interests. The law does have allowances for the individual to indulge in their own personal interests as long as they do not go against the general good of the public. At the same time, there is the unsaid rule that acquiring property does not always reflect physical possession of it but the legality of ownership hence anyone is eligible to own property. The idea of universality of the right principle is brought out in this instance. It states that each person by means of justification of his actions is meant to consider the freedom of others in view of the existent laws. It does not restrict the freedom of the other party but merely enlightens them of their position in the greater picture of society. To deny a person their right to freedom by virtue of the universal law of right is to against all principles of legality of law. Again the birth of a state is explained by means of a collective group of people governed by certain laws. These laws need not be agreeable to all the subjects concerned but they should create harmony and peace to its entire people. They should be publicized and subject to all and sundry with an aim of creating a means to an end. The sovereign is thus obliged to perform its duties and rights to its citizens by providing laws that coerce and not force people into performing their duties. The leader can never be wrong as mentioned earlier, since he is only executing his duties according to the law. However, his actions should be run by the rule of right. The history of our freedom can be traced to the natural law that governs everything else in the world. Just as natural phenomena that undergoes gradual change, so do our actions undergo metamorphosis with the passing of time. These changes shape the future of the generations affected as their abilities are enhanced by the trial of time causing refinements here and there. These changes are complicated affairs which no one can be understand, but only anticipate it. Kant gives an example of marriages, deaths and births whose numbers cannot be estimated by any rule, and yet the freedom of the people greatly determines their occurrence. However, a summary of their numbers seem to indicate that the laws of nature govern them just as the changes in seasons. Man has since being trying to be independent from others in his race, but has refused to admit that his actions are guided by the course of nature. The means to the end is oblivious to him and could prove useless for his knowledge. Kant goes further to criticize man’s behavior by comparing it to animal behavoiur that goes against all the laws of nature. Man does not perform his actions by what he ‘feels’ nor does he have a structure influencing the way he acts; hence there are no precise records of a law-governed history. The result is a melodramatic scenario witnessed in world news. This is ironical since the irrationality of their actions defies their apparent wisdom that they so boast of. It becomes difficult to analyze them since they are baseless in their actions. In trying to understand this peculiar observation, Kant put forth his nine propositions to explain the actions of human beings. From the above, we can try to deduce Kant’s standing on a revolution. He believes that it is a wrong approach to the rule of right. This is because its consequences of overthrowing a leader goes against the constitutional framework of any civilization and instead causes intended and unintended harm to its citizens. The act cannot be justified by any legal standing since as it is said ‘authority comes from God’ meaning that all laws should be treated as sacred and no one should even dare go against them. Once a government has been overthrown, its rule should not be re-established as it is unlawful since its broken laws prove to be irrelevant to its citizens. The deviant ruler should not be punished as he was only executing his role in power. On the other hand, the ruler can by the absolute rule of law be dismissed but not made to account for his ways. For this reason, the aspect of freedom is emphasized to avoid a rebellion towards the leader. This freedom has limits as it can cause disrespect to others if not checked. The people could feel deprived of their right of well being especially when they do not have venue to vent out their frustrations. The importance of the freedom of press and open criticism comes into play at this point. This creates an environment where citizens are at will to do as they please but also take into account the freedom of others. In conclusion, Kant tries to understand the natural laws of history by regarding it as the result of undefined standards of living. However, having a plan to go against our ancient ways, gives us a hint that the future could appear more positive and worthwhile. It would end the wars and strife in the world which are forever witnessed today and in the past. If only people could come together for their greater good while disregarding the wrong external influences, then the politics of the world would improve the status of leadership in most civilizations. A proactive approach should be taken up that will enable us to see what needs to be done to improve the situation at hand while creatively devising ways of propagating peace in society Reference Kant I, and Reiss H. Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print. Read More