Does the End Justify the Means? Machiavelli knew full well that politicians could and did rise to power using dirty tricks.
The divine-right theory, combined with primogeniturebecame a theory of hereditary monarchy in the nation states of the early modern period.
The political ideas current in China at that time involved the idea of the mandate of heaven. It resembled the theory of divine right in that it placed the ruler in What justifies the state divine position, as the link between Heaven and Earth, but it differed from the divine right of kings in that it did not assume a permanent connection between a dynasty and the state.
Inherent in the concept was that a ruler held the mandate of heaven only as long as he provided good government. If he did not, heaven would withdraw its mandate and whoever restored order would hold the new mandate. This is true theocracy;[ citation needed ] the power and wisdom to govern is granted by a higher power, not by human political schemes, and can be equally removed by heaven.
This has similarities to the idea presented in the Judeo-Christian Bible from the time when Israel requests "a king like the nations" 1 Samuel 8: Nebuchadnezzar is restored when he again acknowledges God as the true sovereign.
Self-aggrandizement[ edit ] In Renaissance Italycontemporary theoreticians saw the primary purpose of the less-overtly monarchical Italian city-states as civic glory.
These include security, peace, economic development and the resolution of conflict. Also, the social contract requires that an individual gives up some of his natural rights in order to maintain social order via the rule of law.
Eventually, the divine right of kings fell out of favor and this idea ascended; it formed the basis for modern democracy. Public goods[ edit ] This is an example of the theoretical thinking shifting the emphasis from faith and theoretical principles such as sovereignty to the socio-economic logic, as Karl Marx did.
Thus modern political theorists typically legitimize the state with two major ideas: While a market system may allow self-interested to create and allocate many goods optimally, there exists a class of "collective" - or "public goods" that are not produced adequately in a market system.
These collective goods are goods that all individuals want but for whose production it is often not individually rational for people voluntarily to do their part to secure a collectively rational outcome.
The state can step in and force us all to contribute toward the production of these goods, and we can all thereby be made better off. There are actually many different opinions when it comes to this topic.
Political ideologies[ edit ] It is on those questions that one can find the differences between conservatismsocialismliberalismlibertarianismfascismespecially the latter, and other political ideologies. There are also two ideologies - anarchism and communism - which argue that the existence of the state is ultimately unjustified and harmful.
For this reason, the kind of society they aim to establish would be stateless. Anarchism claims that the community of those fighting to create a new society must themselves constitute a stateless society.
Communism wishes to immediately or eventually replace the communities, unities and divisions that things such as work, money, exchange, borders, nations, governments, police, religion, and race create with the universal community possible when these things are replaced. The degree to which it wins such a fight is held to be the degree to which it is communist instead of capitalist, socialist, or the state.
Anarcho-capitalism argues that taxes are theft, that government and the business community complicit in governance is organized crime and is equivalent to the criminal underworld, and that defense of life and property is just another industry, which must be privatized.
Anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism says that taxes, being theft, are just property, which is also theft, and that the state is inherently capitalist and will never result in a transition to communism, and says that those fighting against capitalism and the state to produce a communist society must themselves already form such a community.
However, the majority of viewpoints agree that the existence of some kind of government is morally justified. What they disagree about is the proper role and the proper form of that government. There are several ways to conceive of the differences between these different political views.
For example, one might ask in what areas should the government have jurisdiction, to what extent it may intervene in those areas, or even what constitutes intervention in the first place. Some institutions can be said to exist only because the government provides the framework for their existence; for instance, Marxists argue that the institution of private property only exists due to government.
|Well-Used Cruelty||Search What Justifies the State?|
|What Justifies The State? | Kanopy||How Not to Justify the State: My main purpose here will be a fairly modest one.|
|Related videos||Part of the Series:|
|Who can edit:||Part of the Series: Quine, who is interviewed.|
The intervention debate can be framed in terms of big government versus small government.State the property that justifies each statement.
If a + 10 = 20, then a = 10 $(5 Subt.
Prop. If 4x ± 5 = x + 12, then 4 x = x + $(5 Add.
Prop. State the property that justifies each statement. If 5(x + 7) = ±3, then 5 x + 35 = ±3. $(5 Dist. Prop. If AB = BC and BC = CD, then AB = CD.
$(5 Trans. Prop. The state, as the textbook refers to, "is the highest authority in a society, with a legal power to define the public interest and enforce its definition." The state is comprised of the governing institutions, politicians, and the legal system.
What Justifies the State? The state, as the textbook refers to, "is the highest authority in a society, with a legal power to define the public interest and enforce its definition." The state is comprised of the governing institutions, politicians, and the legal system.
What Justifies the State? The Communitarian Critique Criticism of Communitarian Criticism: Is state natural, when it takes a huge amount of effort to maintain state; suggesting state is something people need to construct? Jan 29, · In a dictatorship, the ends justify the means for anything the dictator wants to do.
What he says (dictates), goes. But in a constitutional government, the Head of State is limited in power and methods by the Constitution, and he is not free to use any means.
What Justifies the State? asks whether the state is merely an artificial arrangement we construct to make life better, as social contact theorists claim, or whether it's a natural organism through which people achieve their potential.