Building Positive Relationships Through State Coercion - Essay Sample

Introduction

People living within a certain territory need to be organized so as to promote harmony among them and a conducive environment for everyone. To achieve this organization, coercion is used thus bringing out the negative side of the state as every government exercises coercion in order to encourage compliance. However, it is only logical that people find some positive reason that should justify their obedience to the dictates of the state. Power is an artificial creation and those who exercise it over others without seeking their consent first are violating their basic right to freedom. According to Locke, all people are naturally independent, equal and free. Therefore, they need to be left to their own devices to maneuver through life without being coerced. As such, they ought to voluntarily accept to be under a certain rule but not be coerced. Apart from Locke's proposition about the state, Jeremy Bentham proposes the utilitarian theory which suggests that if the state does not maximize the level of happiness of individuals in the society, then it is not justified. He argues that there are alternatives such as tribe that can replace the state if total happiness is to be achieved. The justification of the state is, therefore, a complex subject.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

There may be no particular definition of a state but according to Wolff, there are two distinctive features that characterize the state. One of the features is the monopoly on violence and the other one is political power. While political power majors on law establishment and the punishment of offenders, monopoly of violence is all about the protection of citizens and includes the courts, police and the army. However, Wolff looks at these roles as highly theoretical, considering the many citizens who seek permits to own weapons so that they can protect themselves. This means people still break the law and others are forced to take care of their security. Thus, the state cannot be justified if it cannot fully protect its citizens. Wolff further examines the political obligations that citizens are subjected to. According to him, citizens are politically obliged to act patriotically, defend their country, pay taxes, and above all, obey the law. However, Wolff observes that obedience to the law is, at times, done selectively since obeying some of the laws can amount to immorality. For example, paying taxes and then the money is used to construct nuclear weapons is immoral. Nevertheless, there are two concepts that stand out in the justification of the state namely the social contract and utilitarianism.

The Social Contract

The social contract proposes that the existence of the state becomes justified when people freely consent to it. Locke's suggestion is that every person has consented to the state in a voluntary, explicit and expressive manner. This means that they have freely accepted to have their original freedom and independence limited by the dictates of the state thus making it legitimate. Critics of this voluntaristic justification of the state argue that no person is precisely asked to consent to the state thus the consent still remains a coercion. Wolff proposes that the social contract only provides an 'elegant solution' to the issue of political responsibilities. The social contract encompasses the tacit consent, hypothetical consent and anarchism.

The tacit consent is the unspoken consent that citizens give to the state so as to get protection and benefits in return. In this case, Locke's argument that those who do not want to consent to this arrangement can leave the state is criticized by Hume who contends that this cannot work since it would be a complicated process. On the other hand, the hypothetical concept assumes that the social contract is highly hypothetical and that it is based on non-existent content. According to Wolff, the hypothetical concept is a mere imagination about consenting to the state. He further argues that neither the hypothetical nor the tacit consent makes the social contract credible. The third aspect of the social contract is anarchism which is a philosophical argument that people only obey the state due to prudence and the fear of reprisal. The feature of moral principles come into play as individuals use their moral judgments to make choices of whether to obey the law or not. Locke argues that such an arrangement is a recipe for chaos since individuals behave differently thus there should be laws that are universal. In summary, the three aspects of the social contract do not explicitly justify the state since the anarchism is relative, the tacit consent inconsistent and the hypothetical one unreal.

Utilitarianism

The utilitarianism concept consists of all processes and actions that contribute to the happiness of individuals. Therefore, according to this theory as proposed and examined by Wolff, the state can only be justified if it guarantees the happiness of the individual citizens. Wolf argues that if obeying the law maximizes happiness, the obedience must be observed but if it does not achieve this objective, then this obedience no longer makes sense. Utilitarianism mainly comprises the principle of fairness. This principle is based on the idea of mutual contribution. Wolff argues that for one to enjoy the benefits of the state, they must be ready to meet their part of the bargain by observing their political obligations. Hart adds that it would be unfair to break a law that one benefits from. Additionally, Hume puts it that fairness pays in the long run since people are rarely likely to be rational all the time. Both Hume and Hart agree that citizens have a responsibility to ensure fairness if they are to enjoy the benefits of the state.

Conclusion

In summary, since no one asks any one to create the state, their participation in it makes them institutionalize and legitimize it. However, the concepts of utilitarianism and social contract do not seem to demonstrate a universal justification of the state due to the limited obligation towards it. Nevertheless, political obligations are existent thus the state could still be justified.