ABSTRACT
In the
history of political philosophy there have been different views as to what
relationship should exists between the citizens and state in terms of state’s
power, authority compared to individual right and liberties.
The state is seen as a people living in a given
territory under one law with a single governmental system. Some exponents
conceived of the state through its characteristics and nature, while others
conceive it in terms of it’s function and aims.
The origin of the state poses a problem in
political philosophy because it lacks the element history and anthropological
works. Among the first questions which
political theories raised are what is the origin of the state? Have men always
liked under some forms of political organization? If they have not, what are
the causes that brought the original establishment of modern state? Some of the
theories concerning the beginning of the state are, the divine right theory,
the material theory and the social contract theory.
The main aim of the state is the good of all in
the society. The state Aristotle tells us originated for the purpose of life
and the end of the state is therefore ethical. The state also performs more
active function.
On good moral ground then
a mere overseer, bearing in mind the modern challenges of state such as
economic, education and technological development.
The state also provides good amenities and social
services such as school, good roads, hospitals, water, electricity to mention a
few. To achieve these aims for example, the state might be seen by having to
impose taxation, which might been seen by the people as encroachment.
Right in the first place are generally defined as
power of free actions. But according to H.L.A. Hart, right generally mean in
the minimal sense, these conditions of social life without which no man can
seek in general to be himself at this best. While, liberty could be seen as
freedom exemption from restraints such as justly impose by law. But liberty has
it’s negative and positive sides.
The relationship between
the state and the rights and liberty of citizen is very close, according to Hegal,
the state is order, legal and moral peace. The state providing for law
enforcement agents to prevent violence that might obviate a peaceful
atmosphere. This relationship is like that of father and son. The state
performs paternal functions in protecting the rights and liberties of the
citizen while, the citizen who are the son are duty bound to obeying the state
in their potentials are to be actualized.
In order for the state to meet its focus or end,
it has to set in taxation, law and this is what the citizen call encroachment.
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the history of political philosophy there have
been different views as to what relationship should exist between the citizens
and the state in terms of state’s powers, authority compared to individual
rights and liberties. An exponent of totalitarianism for example would want to
argue that states authority and powers superceded the liberties and right of
the citizens. The totalitarianism would justify a state’s interference on
rights and liberties because they usually see the state as a higher organism
then the individuals, accordingly to them, if these small organism
(individuals) are to actuate their potentials, the state a higher organism of
which they are a part, should first actualize it’s potentials before a favourable
atmosphere can be created for individuals to achieve theirs.
The liberalists on the other hand would want to
argue that the rights and liberties of individuals be abundantly unrestricted.
They tend to perceive the person in the state individually and they feel he
should be given a great amount of freedom to develop his innate potentials to
the maximum. The purpose of this essay is to answer the rather vexed question
being asked in political philosophy, is there any condition whatsoever in which
the state can justifiably, interfere in the rights and liberties of the
citizens? Or put differently, is it justifiable for human beings to be born
free naturally and yet be put in chains by the artificial organism called the
state?
For the purpose of actualizing the aim of this
essay, an objective position would be maintained without taking into cognizance
the position of the totalitarian and the liberalist as exemplified above
rather, logical and morally substantive argument would be used to support this
essay. Logical in the sense that the state is logically bound to interfere with
rights and liberties of individuals on the basis of their definitions and function
that could ascribed to individuals on the other. While the moral argument is
based on the function the state has perform for the citizens that is functions
which are morally good or geared toward moral ends.
This essay is also aimed at resolving the famous
J.J. Rousseau’s Paradox that “Men are born free but everywhere are in chains”1
This justification will employ the argument that men needs some amount of
restraint which men are lacking and ought to be headed, which made them
transcends the state of nature to a well organized state. If it is assumed that
this need has been consciously realized and people went into a contract which
now resembles a contract situation can be justified in behaving in a certain
manner to obviate the circumstance the need for which led to the formation of a
state.
Hegel’s theory of the state, and what he said
about the relationship between the state and its citizens could also justify
it, according to Hegel there is no other power superior to the sovereign state
disputes or conflicts between different individuals in the state are settled by
the state through the enacted laws and not through whimes and Caprices.
The state
according to him is not a human construction freely and deliberately set up by
some kind of social contract. Human beings did not decide to form a state to
provide their needs, as we are told by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke.