#5 Reflection (ym)

     It was my first time reading the Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke. For the reflection post this week, I want to analyze both Machiavelli and Locke to find out an ideal structure of a government. I think that an ideal government will have a base of Locke, but also has an applied philosophy of Machiavelli which has some significant concept in a government.

     Firstly, I will distinguish the different views by Machiavelli and Locke. "Revolt is the right of the people". John Locke espoused something known as intrinsic human rights − life, liberty, and property. He believed that these were inalienable from the notion of a rational human being. He said that the basis of modern democracy, is from the consent of the governed. This is diametrically opposed to the divine right of king's absolutism. Locke interpreted that the state is only legitimate and capable of wielding power so long as it has the people's approval. The people would rule the government through democratic approval, and would have the ability to remove an unpopular regime. Basically, Locke gave right to the people more than the government. Locke's idea is seen in the Bills of Rights, and we can say that he was the key figure in the development of rights: focusing on preserving the man sustaining the ideal government.
     Machiavelli, on the other hand, agreed that a stable government required the approval of the people, but disagreed on the methods. "Government rules the people" was his perspective, and he argued that human rights should be respected insofar as a free populace would have more trust in their government. However, he argued, that freedom of speech, especially the freedom of press, would be incompatible with his methods as dissent against would threaten the stability of the government's power. Especially, Machiavelli's time period was the peak of hierarchies. When the public is uneducated, the power a prince had was influential. Also, there was an underlying premise in Machiavelli that it is impossible to be a good ruler while being a decent person; "... he who seemed to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived". Therefore, the ruler's benevolent behavior was more the ruler's political stability in Machiavelli's time, and his view on citizens as subjects solidifies his ideology as absolutist.

     I would also like to use this space to answer the question from my recent blog post. "Is the world fated to always remain divided up into independent sovereign polities? Is there a world power that has no aspiration of becoming a state?"
     I think that the world is fated to have states with their own independent sovereign politics. I view sovereignty important from the aspect of 1. power/authority and 2. respect. Firstly, without sovereignty, a nation-state's law and morality will be corrupted, because the nation could potentially turn anarchic in nature. Secondly, I think if a nation-state lacks its sovereignty, it will not be viewed seriously from the other nation-states (which is an exception for the IS). For an example, North Korea has power/sovereignty to inflict damages to other countries by using nuclear weapons etc....