Topics Justice

Question Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)?

Accepted:
February 17, 2006

Comments

Although Hobbes, more than any other political philosopher, takes obedience to the government to be the overriding duty of citizens, he claims that citizens do not have a duty to obey a government that is ineffective, that is, does not provide protection to its citizens. If that is what you mean by ineffective, then it seems clear that the government should be replaced, at least if this can be done without causing even more harm to the citizens of that country. However, if you mean by ineffective, that it does not provide anywhere near the kind of the services that could be provided by a country with that level of resources, then Hobbes would claim that it would be wrong to replace the government. By "replacing" I mean what you mean by "strongly reorganized" or "overthrown." I do not mean by "replacing" voting against the party in power. Citizens should vote against the party in power if it is ineffective in the sense that it does not provide anywhere near the kind of the services that could be provided by a country with that level of resources.

Question Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)? Accepted:February 17, 2006

Question Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)?

Accepted:
February 17, 2006