The Patriot Act and Political Philosophers - Essay Example

Introduction: This paper examines the political philosophies of John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes, andmakes a conclusion on which philosophy better reflects the provisions of the Patriot Act. John Locke is one of the most important modern political philosophers. He was able to defend the claims that man, is by nature a free individual, and they are equal to one another. Thomas Hobbes is also an influential political philosopher, and his major philosophies touched on how to maintain a peaceful political and social order. The principles of Thomas Hobbes directly conflicts with the principles of John Locke (Gencer, 2010). This is because he explains that there is a need of submitting a leader who is not accountable to the people. The Patriot act on the other hand is a law enacted in 2001, aimed at fighting and preventing terrorism within the country. Thomas Hobbes and Governance: Thomas Hobbes in his book, the Leviathan, sets out to outline the best principles of government that can lead to prosperity, stability and peace. Thomas Hobbes begins his explanation of the role of the government, by explaining how life would be, without the government(Kitanov, 2011). Under this situation, life would be difficult and anarchic, because people would be engaged in carrying out anything that they want. They can kill, steal, or engage in activities aimed at frustrating their neighbors, just because they are strong. This is a condition that Thomas Hobbes refers to as, “The State of Nature”. For purposes of creating order within the society, there is a need of creating a social contract, and establishing a civil society (Hobbes and Schuhmann, 2003). This civil society should be governed by a sovereign authority who is not answerable to them (Kitanov, 2011). Furthermore, people within the society should cede some of their basic rights, for purposes of acquiring protection from the sovereign authority. Based on these facts, Thomas Hobbes believes that the doctrine of separation of powers does not exists, and this is because the sovereign must control the judiciary, the civil society, the military, and he must have the ecclesiastical powers (Hobbes and Schuhmann, 2003). Hobbes therefore explains that it is only through an absolute monarchy, that the society can be protected from the state of nature. By closely looking at these principles established by Thomas Hobbes, it is possible to explain that Hobbes was advocating for a dictatorship (Kitanov, 2011). This is a form of governance, where its citizens have very limited rights, and they cannot play a role in the governance process, of the country. However, this type of leadership or governance is criticized by John Locke. John Locke and Governance: John Locke on the other hand, believed on the natural rights and laws that human beings benefit from. John Locke explains that the primary role of the government is to serve people. This is by protecting their properties, life and liberty. John Locke advocated for the principles of checks and balances in the governance process (Gencer, 2010). This is because it limits the power of the government, and it prevents it from abusing such kind of power. Based on these facts, John Locke was advocating for the rule of law. This is a rule whereby the governing authorities must follow the principles and guidelines of the law, while governing their people. John Locke further denounced Tyranny, insisting that it played a role in violating the individual rights of people (Locke and Goldie, 2002). Based on these facts, people had a legitimate right to rebel, in case the government failed to provide for their needs, or protect them. Locke further explains that political power, is an example of the natural power that people have given up, into the guardianship of a designated body or authority. A community will have to surrender some potions of its natural rights, for purposes of forming a government, which has the capability of protecting those right (Locke and Goldie, 2002)s. An example is the maintenance of security within a society. A government that fails to protect such kind of rights should be replaced, Even if, it is through rebellion. In the 20th century, the United States has experienced a number of security threats, and an example, is the September 11th terror attacks in United States. In a bid to protect its citizens against the terror attacks, and maintain security within the state, the Congress was able to pass the Patriot Act of 2001. The Patriot Act of 2001: The Patriot Act is a law that was signed in 2001, and its major purpose was to increase surveillance, with the i9ntention of reducing the rate of terrorism attacks in the United States. This law is controversial in the sense that, people argue that it gives the government some too much power, which can threaten the civil liabilities of the state. For instance, section 206 of the act, gives the government the authority to engage in surveillance activities in any property or person without stating what exactly it is looking for (Scherer, 2006). This is a provision that directly contradicts the traditional elements of search and seizure, which requires law enforcement agencies to specifically identify whatever they are looking for. Section 6001 on the other hand allows a secret surveillance on foreigners suspected to be affiliated to terror groups. Such an authorization can lead to abuse and a breach on the human rights of the individuals concerned. However, there are others who argue that the Patriot Act has played a significant role in reducing terrorism (Scherer, 2006). For example, Title 1 advocates for the protection of civil rights and liberties. It allows the secret service to create an electronic crime prevention force, whose main aim is to prevent the occurrence of crime. Title II allows the law enforcement agencies to carry out a surveillance program on foreign agencies and their agents, who are a threat to the security of the country. Title III of this act allows the government to target the funding of terrorists, and cut them off. The Patriot Act and John Locke Views on the Role of State: John Locke believed that the primary role of the state is to carry out functions that its citizens were unable to undertake. Provision of security is one function of the state that its citizens are unable to undertake (Scherer, 2006). However, for these to occur, there is a need of giving up some of the natural rights that citizens enjoy, for purposes of efficient protection by the state. Under the Patriot Act, there are some provisions that negatively affect the rights of citizens (Scherer, 2006). An example is section 206 which allows law enforcement agencies to carry out surveillance programs on properties and people, without specifying what they are looking for. This is a breach for the principles of search and seizure that are outlined in the constitution. However, the entire law is good, because it aims at protecting the citizens, and it only requires a limited ceding of some of those rights. Furthermore, the Patriot Act was enacted by congress, which is an organ of governance. Locke believed in the separation of powers, and congress is one of the institutions of governance, which carries out a check on the excesses of the government (Scherer, 2006). It is also a representation of people, and hence the laws it enacts, is an indication that people have accepted such kind of laws. Based on these facts therefore, the Patriots Act can better explain the provisions and principles of John Locke, in regard to governance. Conclusion: In conclusion, the political views of the two authors are not the same. Thomas Hobbes believes in a dictatorship, while John Locke believes in a democracy. In as much as both of them agree that the state has the responsibility of promoting security, they differ on the methods of undertaking this task. Hobbes believes that it is the sole responsibility of a sovereign leader to protect the society, and establish law and order. Hobbes believes that this process must be democratic, and every institution of governance must be involved. The Patriot Act fulfills this requirement. This is because congress was responsible for enacting it, and the executive is responsible for its implementation. References: Gencer, B. (2010). Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers in John Locke. The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 323-339. Top of Form Bottom of Form Hobbes, T., & Schuhmann, K. (2003). Thomas Hobbes Leviathan. Bristol: Thoemmes. Top of Form Bottom of Form Kitanov, S. (2011). Happiness in a Mechanistic Universe: Thomas Hobbes on the Nature and Attainability of Happiness. Hobbes Studies, 117-136. Top of Form Bottom of Form Locke, J., & Goldie, M. (2002). John Locke: Selected correspondence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Top of Form Bottom of Form Scherer, L. (2006). The Patriot Act. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Read More