MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS

ABSTRACT

In the history of political philosophy there have been different views as to what relationship should exists between the citizens and state in terms of state’s power, authority compared to individual right and liberties.

The state is seen as a people living in a given territory under one law with a single governmental system. Some exponents conceived of the state through its characteristics and nature, while others conceive it in terms of it’s function and aims.

The origin of the state poses a problem in political philosophy because it lacks the element history and anthropological works.  Among the first questions which political theories raised are what is the origin of the state? Have men always liked under some forms of political organization? If they have not, what are the causes that brought the original establishment of modern state? Some of the theories concerning the beginning of the state are, the divine right theory, the material theory and the social contract theory.

The main aim of the state is the good of all in the society. The state Aristotle tells us originated for the purpose of life and the end of the state is therefore ethical. The state also performs more active function.

On good moral ground then a mere overseer, bearing in mind the modern challenges of state such as economic, education and technological development.

The state also provides good amenities and social services such as school, good roads, hospitals, water, electricity to mention a few. To achieve these aims for example, the state might be seen by having to impose taxation, which might been seen by the people as encroachment.

Right in the first place are generally defined as power of free actions. But according to H.L.A. Hart, right generally mean in the minimal sense, these conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general to be himself at this best. While, liberty could be seen as freedom exemption from restraints such as justly impose by law. But liberty has it’s negative and positive sides.

The relationship between the state and the rights and liberty of citizen is very close, according to Hegal, the state is order, legal and moral peace. The state providing for law enforcement agents to prevent violence that might obviate a peaceful atmosphere. This relationship is like that of father and son. The state performs paternal functions in protecting the rights and liberties of the citizen while, the citizen who are the son are duty bound to obeying the state in their potentials are to be actualized.

In order for the state to meet its focus or end, it has to set in taxation, law and this is what the citizen call encroachment.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Title page

Certification

Dedication

Acknowledgement

Abstract

Table of content

Chapter One

• Introduction
  • Definition and origin of the state
  • Origin of the state
  • Functions of the state

References and notes

Chapter Two

2.1    The definition and origin of rights and liberties

2.2    Origins of rights and liberties

2.3    Relationship between state and the rights / liberties of citizen.

References and notes

Chapter Three

3.1    Case of state’s interference with rights and liberties of the citizens

References and notes

Chapter Four

4.1    Moral justification of the state’s interference with the rights and liberties of the citizens

4.2    Summary and conclusion

References and notes

Bibliography

CHAPTER ONE

1.0   INTRODUCTION

In the history of political philosophy there have been different views as to what relationship should exist between the citizens and the state in terms of state’s powers, authority compared to individual rights and liberties. An exponent of totalitarianism for example would want to argue that states authority and powers superceded the liberties and right of the citizens. The totalitarianism would justify a state’s interference on rights and liberties because they usually see the state as a higher organism then the individuals, accordingly to them, if these small organism (individuals) are to actuate their potentials, the state a higher organism of which they are a part, should first actualize it’s potentials before a favourable atmosphere can be created for individuals to achieve theirs.

The liberalists on the other hand would want to argue that the rights and liberties of individuals be abundantly unrestricted. They tend to perceive the person in the state individually and they feel he should be given a great amount of freedom to develop his innate potentials to the maximum. The purpose of this essay is to answer the rather vexed question being asked in political philosophy, is there any condition whatsoever in which the state can justifiably, interfere in the rights and liberties of the citizens? Or put differently, is it justifiable for human beings to be born free naturally and yet be put in chains by the artificial organism called the state?

For the purpose of actualizing the aim of this essay, an objective position would be maintained without taking into cognizance the position of the totalitarian and the liberalist as exemplified above rather, logical and morally substantive argument would be used to support this essay. Logical in the sense that the state is logically bound to interfere with rights and liberties of individuals on the basis of their definitions and function that could ascribed to individuals on the other. While the moral argument is based on the function the state has perform for the citizens that is functions which are morally good or geared toward moral ends.

This essay is also aimed at resolving the famous J.J. Rousseau’s Paradox that “Men are born free but everywhere are in chains”1 This justification will employ the argument that men needs some amount of restraint which men are lacking and ought to be headed, which made them transcends the state of nature to a well organized state. If it is assumed that this need has been consciously realized and people went into a contract which now resembles a contract situation can be justified in behaving in a certain manner to obviate the circumstance the need for which led to the formation of a state.

Hegel’s theory of the state, and what he said about the relationship between the state and its citizens could also justify it, according to Hegel there is no other power superior to the sovereign state disputes or conflicts between different individuals in the state are settled by the state through the enacted laws and not through whimes and Caprices.

The state according to him is not a human construction freely and deliberately set up by some kind of social contract. Human beings did not decide to form a state to provide their needs, as we are told by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

• DEFINITION AND ORIGIN OF THE STATE

1. DEFINITION OF STATE

The question of what really is a state has never been an easy one because the state has been conceived of in different ways and varying perspectives. Some people have conceived of the state through its function aims.

The state is seen as a people living in a given territory under one law with a single governmental system extending to all of them and to no one else, are the members of a state, but the state as an institution does not embrace all roles in which they are but only political or legal roles.²

Though this definition is too specific because it makes it categorically clear that the state can only plays political or legal roles and it will not be taken seriously within the ambits of this essay. In any case, to gasp or capture the basic aim of this essay, a brother analysis of the definition of the state is required; hence it becomes necessary to employ the two concepts of a state highlighted above.

Related Project Topics :