The common theory among political scientists is that John Locke, proponent and celebrant of democracy, is the great ancestor of our Constitution and Declaeuation of Independence, but in this new and enlightening investigation into our political roots Dr. Mace argues that our real political sire was a man often hated and scorned as an antidemocratic monerchist--Thomas Hobbes. Mace's exposition of political philosesphy shows that Locke supported deeilocracy but that, in Locke's view, democracy does not automatically supeuort liberty and freedom for all. Hence, Lockean democracy would provide for the protection of life, liberty, and property--not happiness. The monarchist Hobbes, on the other hand, believed a sovereign's duty lay in the protection of life, liberty, and happiness for all. For Hobbes, sovereignty exists only when monarch and subject are mutually obliged; when the sovereign fails to proem³ide security, or when he forces upon his subjects a life that is wearisome, the suberect has the right to rebel. Ultimately, his is much closer to the philosophy of Publius--Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, the men whose collected essays were published as The Federalist.Publius goes one step further, however; he proposes a federalist system that will eliminate the need for the sword as final arbiter.But no matter who seeks to answer constitutional questions a whether the Court, other governmental officials, pressure groups, or individual citizens a the problem finally is to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers, the bases of whichanbsp;...
|Title||:||Locke, Hobbes, and the Federalist papers|
|Publisher||:||Southern Illinois University - 1979-06-01|