Agree? Or Disagree?

We all have different opinions in terms of running the state. Whether to use force, popularity or influence of people. There are theories explaining it’s govern process, there were a lot…but in my opinion, there is always that one imperfectly perfect theory that seems to dominate all other theories respectively, and these are my reactions towards these theories:

Plato’s theory:

“As a state arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants.”

Disagree. I find Plato’s theory both convincing and true. Not because ideally, if a man would want to serve the people, he must succumb himself to the people and not by selfish means. And it could regulate unbiased decisions and equal justice. However, one factor that makes it imperfect is that the concept of ‘RULE OF THE FEW’ could still have flaws. Take for example when the rule of the few becomes abusive and tyrannical…what could be the consequence? What would the citizens do if the “rule of the few” is the only one capable of change? The people would seem useless and their voices would not be heard throughout the government years. If oligarchs rule, there is no distinct fact we could say that the state will actually become progressive, but I completely understand Plato’s statement that to lead the people, you have to ‘be the people’. We are all different in a way, in a silent fact, one would always want power.

Aristotle’s theory:

“Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice.”

Disagree. Even though it is on opposite terms with Plato’s, Aristotle’s theory has a hole. Owning private properties would not determine anything…if we base it on the Philippines’ kind of government, it doesn’t work by Aristotle’s theory considering the endless issues of politicians owning huge quantities of lands and the list goes on and on. The only thing I agree in this theory is of the master-slave relationship. To me, it is an example of what democracy is. It is not the leaders who are the masters, it is the people…if election comes, and the slave would try to persuade the master into choosing him or her to be appointed as the head, and serve the master truthfully, and help the master progress until the time comes to choose another slave to help the master.

St. Thomas’ theory:

“How can we live in harmony? First we need to know we are all madly in love with the same God.”

Disagree. As a country with 90% Christians, we cannot say ‘WE ARE ONE’, because even if there would be a few, there would still be disputes, misconceptions, arguments and questions that would lead to a debate. We say that we are all fighting for one God, but it’s not that fact. We all believe in God, however, there is still the presence of atheists. (Not saying atheists are wrong, just a matter of contradiction) Loving one God isn’t wrong, but what I am saying is…it is not enough because we all have a choice. We are all not the same but we all think the same way whether poor or rich…we want to prosper and good leadership and God should, we should not just rely on God but help ourselves too to attain that balance.

Niccolo Macchiavelli’s theory:

“Politics have no relation to morals.”

Disagree. Our country for instance is facing a huge problem concerning the safety of the people as well as self-discipline. If we do not use ‘Armed Forces’ as a sign of authority, then the people will more likely to not fear the authority itself, and nothing will change. And the matter would worsen by every second we do not do anything; however, there is still a loophole to this seemingly perfect theory. Take for example, you are one of the criminals; you committed a mistake but you are willing to change sincerely, but what if the punishment would be death? And as it is stated by the law, a ‘death sentence’ is your punishment. As a human being, don’t we need to have a 2nd chance for change? Don’t we have the right to still live like a newborn person? Because in my opinion, everyone can change and it is not right to punish a person by just one mistake, we still have human rights by the way. And as humans, we have the right.

Thomas Hobbes’ theory:

“”It is not wisdom but authority that makes the law.”

Agree. Thomas Hobbes is considered a perfect theory. In which all seems fair and justice is served. Pure violence is not good, and so is pure democracy. An agreement is sufficient to avoid questionings and debates. Whatever agreement the party involves, in whatever terms, when broken could be used against the both of them. And they cannot escape, since there is a document proving its worth. It could be an agreement between the rich or poor, master or slaves, animals or people, and even as a pact. If there is an agreement, both parties are in good terms and it is maintained to be sealed and protected as a part of right. Wisdom, in my opinion is not enough to run the society but authority. The agreement would become the basis of living and if people live by these agreements, then there is no question, that we would be disciplined and become a proper state we could be proud of. Then we could actually say that we have a balanced and unbiased state.

Baron De Montesquieu’s theory:

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”

Disagree. In terms of equal leadership, yes it is quite good. But this kind of theory has a lot of faults to begin with. If independency of ‘the 3 Spirit of the laws’, then that would mean corruption can penetrate everywhere considering that these 3 (mainly legislative, executive and judiciary) cannot intercross. It would mean that the state could fall into a deep hole of trouble wherein no one could be trusted if we appoint the wrong people. A country without trust is no country at all, and the people who would more likely to be pitiful is no more likely than us. And it is directly connected to monopoly, which I consider an enemy to society.