What, if anything, justifies government in claiming authority over its subjects? Why do you think citizens are obligated to obey their government? Compare and contrast the different approaches of natural law, positive law, social contract theory, and utilitarianism, to these questions. In your view, is any of these approaches satisfactory in legitimizing governmental authority? Why, or why not?
The government possesses monopoly for legal use of means of compulsion and formally plays a role of the arbitrator in distribution of the blessings. There is a danger, that the government will distribute them to own advantage. In this connection in democratic societies the pluralism and competition of political influences of various subjects of the policy participating during acceptance of the state decisions takes place. For the beginning, it would be desirable to notice, that the government has the certain characteristic features. First, realization of authority occurs to the help of the detached device in the certain territory to which the state sovereignty is distributed. Second, this authority has an opportunity to use means of the organized and legislatively established violence. In such kind the government represents the best, fullest expression of political authority.
The need of authority develops of objective necessity of the organization of a social production which is impossible without submission of all participants for a single will. The authority is necessary for maintenance of integrity, unity and stability of a society. Important thus to pay attention to a problem of requital. The matter is that as a result of a division of labour in a society there is a dissatisfaction concerning that you have given and that has in exchange received. And the majority of people in this connection feels a dissatisfaction, social intensity is created. The society requires the constant coordination of private interests, their reduction public interest which is reached by means of submission of will of separate people to strong-willed abilities other others able better to define the purposes and to force itself them to carry out. Capacity and authority of authority on much depend on its legitimacy which is its basic, strategic resource. Legitimacy is a legality, the consent, mutual trust concerning a society, people and the political authority, consisting in a recognition of its right for a supervising role. Legitimacy includes two components: opinion of people on legality of the given authority, on the one hand, and comprehension by ruling circles of the right on authority, with another.
Invested with authority should lean not only on the physical compulsion authorized by the law, but also should convince citizens (people) of own necessity, justify the positions and actions. There are various theories explaining legitimacy of authority. The basis of theories is made, first of all, with the attitude to the right and the law. According to the theory of positivism the essence of the right and the law cannot be distinguished, and thus the law is the form, and the right it not one law, and all sum or set of laws. Or set of norms. And consequently the right represents set of norms established by the state and, provided with his compulsory force. The aspiration to identify the right and the law, certainly has under itself the certain basis: in this case frameworks of the right strictly are formalized, become "purer", that is erected in the law admits as the right only: outside of the law is not present and it can not be right.
However in a vein of such approach supporters of positivism reduce the right to the law and treat his compulsory character as essence of the right and his distinctive feature. On such logic it turns out, that the official authority can erect wrongly (and in general all not legal social norms) can at own discretion and to erect to an arbitrariness in the right. The help of compulsion (the order of authority) solve thus problems not only subjective character (a formulation of norms of the legislation), but also the objective plan (a formulation and creation of the right), and also a scientific structure (an establishment and finding-out of specificity of the right, his difference from other social norms). Adherents of such positivistic identification of the right and the law reduce a problem of social sense and a role of the right to a question on compulsory value of norms of the legislation.
Such unilateral sight at the right, certainly, leads to to that the authority does not require in легитимации as itself creates rules of law. The usual person turns out discharged from statement managements. At data of the right to set of norms, it becomes something external for the person, imposed to it from above. The similar narrow treatment deforms the right as for the person holes not in themselves are valuable, and those real opportunities and the blessings with which they provide. Absolute in another way supporters of the theory of the natural right concern to the given question.
According to the natural-legal concept: the natural right - an embodiment of objective properties and values of " the present right ", acting as a due sample, the purpose and criterion for an estimation of a positive law and establishing authority corresponding the right (the legislator, the states as a whole), for definition of their natural-legal importance, value. Thus the natural right is understood as already by the nature moral (religious, moral) the phenomenon and is initially allocated with corresponding absolute value. The concept of the natural right, thus includes various moral, moral characteristics.
The aspiration to bring a strong moral basis under the legislation and separate laws, - is doubtless, rather noble business. It is possible to dream only that under each law issued in this or that country there was a solid moral, moral basis. However categories of evil and goods are important for definition of essence of morals, but not essence of the right. Morals it too a normative social regulator, however, norms of the right and norm of morals have essential distinctions. The question on a parity of the state and morals is very much combined, because in many cases it is completely opposite things. From the occurrence of the concept "state", both authority, and scientists dealing with a problem of the theory of the state and the right, diligently was outlined, that a basis of any state system are moral standards of a society. And as a vivid example of such statements the theocratic theory of occurrence of the state can serve. She considers the state as the Divine craft, as the Charism to humanity. Also that laws of the state should be based on the Divine laws.
But also there is also completely opposite sight at a problem of mutual relation of the state and morals. Many known politicians in general denied interrelation of the state and morals. In particular U.Cherchil spoke " the State has no morals but only interests ", but I think that it not absolutely correct point of view, though and not deprived the bases. One more theory which considers the given problem, the theory of a contractual origin of the state has arisen in depth of centuries. In Ancient Greece some sophists considered, that the state has arisen as a result of contractual association of people with the purpose of maintenance of validity.
Supporters of the named theory recognized that to the state the natural condition which they characterized differently precedes. For Russo, for example, people in a natural condition possess the born rights and freedom, for Gobbs this condition " wars of all against all ". Then for the sake of the world and well-being the public contract between each member of a society and the created state consists. Under this contract people transfer a part of the rights of the government and take up engagement subordinate to it, and the state undertakes to protect inaliennable human rights, i.e. the right of the property, freedom, safety. The agreement of people, on Russo's ideas, - a basis of legitimate authority. In result everyone agreeing submits to the general will, but at the same time becomes one of participants of this will. The sovereignty belongs to people as a whole, and governors are representatives of people, obliged to report to it and replaced on his will. The contractual theory has begun the doctrine about people's sovereignty, подконтрольности, the accountability before people of all state - power structures, their removability.
There are many the different points of view to definition of legitimacy of authority. According to M.Veber, for example, legitimacy is not only legality of the given authority from the formal-legal point of view, and more likely - the phenomenon of the social psychology consisting in acceptance by a society of the given political authority or, at least, passive obedience to it. So again arising modes can become legitimate if will provide to itself support of a significant part of a society. In this connection the nature of legitimacy, its sources and ways of maintenance can be rather various, depending on a cultural level, traditions, psychology of the population. How the authority gets legitimacy? In due time M.Veber has allocated three opportunities:
1. Due to tradition. By virtue of that "always" (from the point of view of citizens) was legitimate. The authority has traditional character when she is consecrated by authority of long since existing patriarchal establishments, and also religious norms. Such way of legitimizing governmental authority is characteristic for a monarchy. 2. As the rational-legal authority existing there where to the persons in power, obey by virtue of a recognition of legitimacy of laws due to w