Philosophy of Law Examination
Authoritarianism is basing upon individual and institution levels, which was rejected by John Locke on his arguments. Based on the individual level, authoritarianism wanted an individual to accept the law they created as opposed to John Locke, who proposed the involvement of every citizen, whereby they are allowing looking for truth instead of taking the proposal through reasoning. For instance, John Locke’s Sections 88 of 2nd treatise on government in chapter VII of civil society, which states that people should set punishment for every transgression worth it. Basing on the institution level, itis significant to differentiate legal roles to citizens from illegal ones as opposed by John Locke, who believes in thinking and trying to understand the reality to figure out the constitutional parts of the institution to improve human growth at the individual level and the community at large.
First, it understands the definition of legitimacy, either it will be descriptive or a normative what a normative or descriptive is all involve. The second process is where a question arises concerning what is requiring of legitimacy; these questions bring arguments which is using decision making in political institutions. Finally, they raise questions in the civil institution where subjects of legitimacy are required. The role of civil government is to conserve liberty, human rights, the wealth of the people ruled, health, punishing people who go against the right of other and maintain good relation amongst the citizen, provision unavailable resources and setting rules for punishing criminals.
The state is governing established law, and it should not work contrary to it. The country is not supposed to raise taxes on the wealth of the people without their involvement. In contrast, he advocated for rebellion only when: natural human rights of its citizens are violating forcing the citizen to become slaves, thus causing the war.
There is no problem because reasoning is the principal foundation of all arguments, and consideration of other people’s opinions is essential to avoid violation of the other party’s right. If an individual is not allowed to give their views, the government will have excess power.
I am basing on Mill’s harm principle, the action of texting while walking can harm others. For example, a subject may be walking along the road without looking forward and in one way or the other collide with the other person. It might lead to war against the two individuals. The government may be protecting its citizens when imposing this law.
From the case of human rights, the government can be violating social privacy because of the message that the person is sending maybe a very urgent one. They may protect the person from harm but violate his/her privacy. Thus, the government should not impose such laws on its subjects.
Judges are the ones to re-examine the law before it is amended and effected by the subjects. To review whether intentions of the individual and the content of the text. The code may be right, but based on an evaluation by judges become obsolete.
Yes, they provide with basis on which the law should be evaluating before being imposed on the subject since it considers every aspect of individual rights.
It has been trying since over 30 years people have been holding arm, and the government has not been able to take them. On the same, a militia was denying the right to cell division, but they were selling them to native Americans to protect them from blacks.
The case was about holding a firearm as a way of self-defense but owning it constitutionally. Before 1975 the law was kept. After the second amendment, the government decided to ban the law, and everyone denies the right to own a firearm (Lund, N.2008). The supreme court nullified the second amendment in the year 2008 by the law of 5-4 votes.
Yes, the court is making correct decisions since people are regulating by the government, and subjects are assuring of self-defense. It also improves the security of the state, in general, considering that all the individuals holding arms are registering to the government.
Holding a gun or rifle is the best way of offering yourself with self-defense as compared to the time you don’t have. Even when the police are not round, and there is an attack, one can easily defend himself. Also, considering the aging people who are frequently attacking, they cannot fear. It also reduces the work of the government in the provision of security.
Yes, obeying the law, which is giving typical law process, comes from an individual that is, naturally duty used to promote, peace among the society. According to Burton, S. J. (1985), we obey the law to avoid punishment. We also follow since it is a must except in circumstances where disobedience is permitted by it.
Reference
Burton, S. J. (1985). Law, Obligation, and a Good Faith Claim of Justice. Calif. L., Rev., 73, 1956.
Lund, N. (2008). The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence. UCLA L. Rev., 56, 1343.
Ruffman, T., Ruffman, C., Hill, S., Turunc, G., Park, N., Du, K., … & Philipp, M. C. (2020). RWA and SDOc: The measurement of right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in childhood. Social Development.