According to Plato’s classification, aristocracy, timocracy, plutocracy, tyranny, and democracy are modes of ruling in a governmental state. They are consecutively denigrating in value and have the subsequent meaning. Aristocracy is a supreme ruling of the elite caste of philosophers oriented for the common good. Timocracy is a sublevelled form of ruling where rulers are more oriented to the honor than common prosperity. Plutocracy is an openly mercantile stance where the governing caste drives for riches and society is divided into the rich and poor. Democracy gives way after the impossibility of holding wealth in honor and losing control of citizens. The last form, tyranny, is a cringe attempt of a mob to get rid of the democracy evil by fully submitting itself to the stronghold of a ruler as mentioned by essay master.
Natural law is a superseding correspondence to the God’s eternal law. Up to this, the natural rights are the universal codes relevant to the moral conscience and practical reasoning. Cicero’s true law is a universally equal and unchangeable law for all nations and times, standing boundless in a full agreement with the Nature.
Hobbes’ first natural right is to seek peace as far as it can be obtained. However, if it is impossible, all the measures for self-defense have to be undertaken. The second natural right is to be content with the peace and self-preservation. Additionally, these conceptions resound to the irrevocably malicious ‘state of nature’ which, due to Hobbes, is a disorganized, ravish and competitive societal mob, if there is no a superlatively authoritative power, the so-called ‘Leviathan’. Relations between people themselves and this sovereign power are based upon the social contracts connected with the meaning of ‘justice’.
Locke evaluated a state as people submitting themselves to the social contract via the own consent, with the further delegation of powers to the legislative branch of government. Considerably, they are entrusting, not giving up, their properties and rights for safeguarding. Locke’s three natural and inalienable rights are the human essential rights to life, liberty and property. The first right is induced from the thesis of divine resemblance of a human. The second right is more specified to shape the intra-social relations, having God’s moral principles in basis too. The third right is inseparable from the fact of the human toil which is being performed by one’s untouchable body (limbs).
The overall historical analysis of the governmental pervasions shows that some practical parts of either Hobbes’, Locke’s or Rousseau’s political views have been engaged in the building of a state. It would not be right to say that the combinatory principle of their ideas has been embroiled. Particularly, Locke’s vision of the governmental structure, with its relations to obedience to society, is a seamlessly applicable variant of political framework.
In his interpretation of the natural man concept, Rousseau echoes with that of Hobbes, having considered the man’s natural composite as a delusive one. On the contrary, Rousseau’s civil man is the one who has surrendered his rights and liberties to the communal liberty of the collective will, with the coercive persuasion to obey the laws prescribed due to this general will of majority.
The harm principle, or principle of avoiding harm, commonly justifies enjoining of personal freedom and liberties to that extent where it would not impinge the same liberties of others. Pertaining to a government, it should not enlarge the own powers in order not to restrain the liberties of society.
The Marxist conceptualization of the labor-property relations was primarily apt for the socio-economic transformation. Due to Marx’s assessment, the contemporary society went to the phase of the next dialectic circle, signaling a rush of manufacturing and consecutive elimination of the privileges of the working class (the proletariat). The named theory was running consonant to Rousseau’s conception of the common good and will.
