A Subtle Difference Between Republican State And Government

A subtle difference between Republican State and Government

Introduction

For Kant, the ideal state that a rational and free man should prefer is the Republican state. This is authentically republican, since it defends that a political state must be based on the will of the people expressed in laws, on a constitution given by the general will, where it is stated that the Executive Power must be represented by a king and the power Legislative must always represent the people. This is how republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the Executive and Legislative Power.

Developing

Likewise, Kant initiates a subtle difference between Republican State and Government with Republican Spirit, which allows him to have a way that is distant from the revolutionary, such as the French for the progress of freedom. It is then the evolution of a constitution, but not a revolution. To reach this evolution, the enlightened education by citizens are needed, in order to have good use of reason. To achieve this illustration, freedom is mainly needed, that freedom to make public use of reason entirely. 

There Kant’s motto is born: Sapere Aude, which means: have the value of using your own reason. This is how thanks to freedom of thought and expression, philosophers may remain attentive from civil society so that the government can fulfill its moral imperative to legislate and decide how the people would do it if it effectively elaborated the laws.

Kant’s republicanism also worries about promoting republican life through education, since it would bring progress to society.

On the other hand, for hobbes we are all equal by nature, we all have in common the belittling the other and assessing our own talents, our main problem as a society is competition, since the goods are limited and one can desire the assets of the other, So a competition is generated, which in turn will become a discord and this will take us to a war of all against all. 

This is why the social contract was created to be able to live comfortably, to form a good society that can progress day by day. It is the conservation instinct, which drives us to create a pact between us, this pact will give rise to the State. For Hobbes, there must be an absolutist state that may be at the service of people, who can solve the conflict of people, because if they solve it, they would kill themselves like wolves. This state is called by Hobbes El Leviatan, this has the function of exercising physical violence over the one that violates the pact. This state is the only one that contains and dominates everything, therefore it is considered absolutist. 

The only limitation of the sovereign for his exercise is based on the laws of nature. These are contrasted with individual passions, these natural laws are governed under the idea of ​​reason and passions under the idea of ​​ambition, selfishness. All these passions lead to people from transforming in the enemies of people and adding the individual rights that each of them possesses, being unprotected physical security and the safety of personal goods.

I consider that Kant’s Republican State, although it makes an important separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative, within the Executive Power, this should not always be represented by Reyes, since some person who is not king could also be trained for ensure the benefit of the people. 

conclusion

This is how I consider that although the objective is for the people to benefit, it should be achieved that the people can choose without any condition those who want them to represent them, since in that way, a better democracy that contributes with the development would be built of the State. On the other hand, Hobbes tells us that absolute power is necessary so that we can control all others, since if not, we would enter a world of total competition to each other that would end up destroying us, for me it is serious That a single person has absolute power, since it could collapse and fall into abusive acts and, since they have no restriction, could violate the rights of other people who want to manifest, a situation that cannot be tolerable under any aspect. Finally, I want to express that these thoughts are from past centuries and maybe at that time, they saw it as the best ways that their society can improve, since if we see it from a perspective of the current century, both states consider that they would not have any success.