TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > Political Philosophy - State
The state is a political entity, which claims control over a people and a geographical area. It usually contains a set of institutions that claim an authority, and help decide the laws that people must follow within it’s border.
Max Weber defined the state as an entity which claims “a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within it’s territory”.
- Such examples include armed forces, police, the legal system, etc.
- The state may disarm others within it’s own jurisdiction who threaten to provoke it’s power.
- The state claims a licence to regulate all activities within its territory, even those of other organisations within the jurisdiction.
- The State claims to represent the people and institutions of the country.
Although the state is a universal power within the jurisdiction, it is made up of many different ideologies that are constantly in conflict with each other. This is known as the Government, and although have similar basic principles, they all have differing ideas about how the state should run the country. In general, the ideal that is held by the majority/ruling power is the main set of rules by which the state will attempt to act on.
- The primary role of the state is to protect its citizens, and provide security for the general population. This can include defence from foreign aggression, prevention of crime within the state and maintenance of institutions such as the penal system and the courts.
- Hobbes argues that in order for any sort of trade, agriculture, ‘commodius living’, etc to be achieved, then the state MUST be powerful enough to protect its borders, and must also be powerful enough to exercise punishment on people who commit crime. Only once these conditions have been fulfilled can the state work on the lesser important necessities (by lesser important, we mean that Security is the most important factor in a country).
- Locke and Augustine have an opposing view to Hobbes. They both argue that the citizens within the state have a right to enjoy protection from abuse of the states power. It is the states duty to protect the people from itself. The state must then thus far be limited in it’s action so to protect its citizens.
- Hobbes would argue that any power exercised by the state is legitimate. The people do not get a say on how the ruler rules, unless the people are in direct threat of death by the actions of the state. Since the state is providing security for the people, any situation is better than the chaotic ‘state of nature’.
- Aristotle and Plato both had similar views about the roles of the state.
- They both believed a leader chosen for his intellectual qualities and ability to produce strong and beneficial moral laws, should rule the state.
- This leader would be more concerned with the character of his people, and would set down institutions to educate and train people to have certain desirable properties. This was the proposal of Aristotle.
- This is similar to what we have today. Schools and colleges ensure people are trained to think a certain way and have certain qualities.
- Machiavelli responded to Aristotle by saying that the ruler does not need to abide by strict moral codes, and in fact discourages it as it only produces a weak, squeamish leader.
- The main political goal for the leader should be to gain more power. The pursuit of power is how things get done, and if the leader was too squeamish, then he would fail in this pursuit.
- The leader can lie and doesn’t have to respect the population, as this would make him a weak leader.
- But surely a leader who deceives his people cannot be trusted. If the people cannot trust their leader, then doesn’t this make him weak?
- The pursuit of power has been the downfall of major regimes, eg the German Nazi party.
Another problem with Aristotle’s idea of a leader is that the leader claims to have correct moral laws that apply to everyone. The fact is not everybody has the same idea of morality, and so how can one person claim to know what’s good for all-others?
Even with the intellectual capacity of this leader, no one can be virtuous enough to be trusted not to abuse his unlimited power.
Also See
Comments
These notes are aimed at A Level Philosophy students for the module on 'Political Philosophy'.
Originally written by coldplasma on TSR Forums.
