"We must now fear the person who obeys the law more than the one who breaks it." (MacDonald) Discuss.
Essentially the reasoning behind the social contract is the same for most authors; it is the creation of Sovereign for the purpose of protecting the individual's interests. However, there are many discrepancies between the continuation of the relationship between the citizen of the state and the Sovereign. For Hobbes the social contract is of a perpetual nature, and cannot be revised, for Locke this was not the case, instead it was thought that if the Sovereign discontinued to fulfil its purpose in defending the individual's interests the social contract was breached and the individual had the right to deny the Sovereign's authority. Authors since tend to fall into either the Hobbes group or the Locke group, Rousseau's opinion falls within the latter believing the governed were free to disobey and establish a new political contract if they did not feel the Sovereign is delivering its side of the contract. Kant believed that there was no right to revolution due to the Sovereign being indivisible, as did Hobbes.
I find that not only in theory but also in practical terms I will have to agree with the theories of Locke, Rousseau and Fuller. I feel that Hobbes contradicts himself when he claims that law is reason subject to interpretation and amendment by equity ; if we see equity as being natural justice and then asserts that law is none the less law even if it is unjust law, would the lack of equity not be fatal to legislation being classed as law would it not destroy the very character of what law is?
If we do follow the Locke standpoint law is seen as less robust or solid, it is subject to the constraints of ...