People are born innocent and should always be granted equal rights. Based on Hart et al. the primary goal of any political associations is to preserve the natural rights of man. However, contemporary world may deny people multiple rights, ranging from freedom of expression, worship, association, speech and rights to live. Numerous difficulties pose themselves whenever a social contract’s system is stated. The validity of the contract is also an issue. If the ancestors had the right to choose the regulation system that was considered suitable for life and barter away the independence and understandings of those that followed them, little could be achieved through justice and equality.
The consent’s nature is another proposed query that stipulates the form of engagement. A lawful government is quietly submitted, whether it is the tyranny of Caligula or Cromwell. An agreement is primarily an individual’s choice on what he or she considers the least evil (La Torre et al. 20). Individuals who enjoy the possessions of a nation are obliged to abide by the laws of its government. Entering into the commonwealth by expressing promise and positive engagement makes a person its member. Current governments are still submitted to serve their citizens and also make sure everyone abide by the laws.
However, in the contemporary world, the social contract’s objective is revived and developed in various distinct ways. The consensus of people subject to enforced social arrangements indicates that the accounts have standardized properties. Examples of these properties are obligating, legitimate, and just. Nowadays, the social contract’s goal is indicating that some society members have ground to comply with and endorse primary institutions, laws, social rules, or principles regulating that particular society. It deals with public justification by dictating if a given regime is worthy of loyalty and, therefore, legitimate. Contractual approaches can be analyzed into five elements: the agreement, the parties, what is to be shown by the agreement, the agreement’s object, and the social contract role.
Senior governments, however, violate several moral and sacred principles. The mystery of the origin of the current senior governments shows the disgrace and iniquity they began with. It could be difficult for a banditti to overrun the country while the main form of employment was keeping herds and flocks. The establishment of the chief’s power led to the origin of kings and monarchy. England’s government is among the latest government forms related to the monarchy’s line.
The hatred caused by the tyranny and Norman invasion must have been embedded deeply in the nation. Every village in England has not forgotten the curfew-bell. These bands of robbers parceled and divided the world into dominions. Anything that was first acquired through violence was regarded lawful, and there were plunderers one after another. They invaded the authorities and treated each other with cruelty, which shows the Monarchy’s primary character. The conqueror always regarded the conquered as his property rather than his prisoner.
With this history of governments, a continued system of extortion and war can only be expected. Immorality is not strange to someone more than the others, but it is a customary principle of all. One could assume that if governments started in an upright code and were not interested in the following immorality, the world could be seen in quarrelsome and wretched conditions. This reasoning may be perfect for a country but not for a government. The nations are the dupes, while war is regarded as the Pharo-table of governments. Progress in commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing arts has positively performed despite the oppression and discouragement.
Past and present administrators are almost the same. However, there are some differences between the senior and the current governments. Many nations today are considered democratic, but when their citizens are not in politics, democracy is ruined. Freedom for the religion of choice and freedom of speech is evident with the current governments that are democratic. Rights of man are well defined and exercised in a democratic country (Hart et al. 14). There are also authoritarian regimes where a group of leaders or one ruler has absolute power over a nation. Citizens of this form of government have no freedom of expression as they do not have a voice about how they are ruled.
Hart, David M., et al. “Thomas Paine: The Rights of Man (1792).” Social Class and State Power. Edited by David Hart, Gary Chartier, Ross Kenyon and Roderick Long, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. Pp.11-17.
La Torre, Massimo. “Godwin, William.” Springer Nature. Research Gate, 2020, pp. 3-5.