• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should the state play more or less of a role in deciding what is good for society?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Should the state play more or less of a role in deciding what is good for society? Ever since the state began there have been debates on whether it exercises too much or not enough power. There are many examples of states having too much power and abusing it to such an extent that it is of no benefit to the people of the particular country. For the majority of human history countries have been stateless, and not until the emergence of feudal society did people start to obey state rules. The state acts, as a representative of the people who live within it, when a party or person is elected there is a contract established and that elected person or party gains control. The citizens within the state are obliged to obey the rules set as they have consented to be subject to the power of the party. In a democratic system, the chosen party will be primarily concerned with keeping power and therefore must be seen to be undertaking the wishes of the public in order to be re-elected The state is responsible for many important decisions concerning education, the health system, emergency services and generally the protection of the lives of its citizens. The state is supposed to be the representative of the general public, which coincides with the idea of the importance of the individual as in a state only the majority's opinion counts. ...read more.

Middle

Due to the industrial revolution family structures have changed dramatically over the years. Because of this families have become more spread out over the country. This has lead to a less supportive structure of the modern family and it is believed that the state needs to help in some instances. If the state played less of a role in deciding on what is good for society it could be said that this would be a socio-political regression. However without an enforcer, an individual's protection of his personal property and freedom of speech would be entirely dependant on his own ability. In theory it sounds as if there would be complete freedom for everybody but this freedom would mean that nobody would have to uphold any laws or fear any penalty for their actions, and it is very likely this would cause absolute chaos. Without the state, people would need to become a lot more self-sufficient and perhaps make a move away from modern life and its subsequent benefits. Although the state playing less of a role in the functioning of society does not necessarily mean the emergence of an anarchistic state as seen in tribal societies. Tribal societies have always lived without state but instead have had laws of practice and custom. ...read more.

Conclusion

At the time figures escalated but ten years on, they have actually been reduced from the original number. The state should remain more of a guideline rather than an imposition where the opinion of the majority is recognised and highlighted but not necessarily enforced as law. The citizenship should always outweigh the will of those in power and the state should reflect the people, the people should not reflect the state. As mentioned previously the Labour government in power in Great Britain at the present time sees the family as vital for the stability of society. They believe many social problems stem from family break down and their policies were aimed to strengthen family values. Although Labour has possibly played more of a role in deciding what is good for society than previous governments there are always going to be some people who disagree with the decisions a state makes. In response to the original question there is no real specific answer to whether the state should play more or less of a role as it all depends on personal opinion. Some people will think the state is not involved enough; some people will think they are too involved and others will think they have it right. Perhaps the real debate is who benefits from the state, those in power or the people obedient to it, but that is a whole new question. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    Yolton articulates this when he states, "(b)y mixing my work, my energy with some object, (nature), I particulise that object, it's commonness becomes particular" Locke believed that as long as there was plenty for others, consent was pointless, irrelevant and would merely be an overzealous exercision of power.

  2. Power and Politics in Organizations: Public and Private Sector Comparisons

    Some of the trends now apparent in the corporate sphere give mild reason for thinking that this transformation is already under way. Pinchot and Pinchot (1993: 64-74), for example, predicted that tomorrow's intelligent organization will consist of many smaller ones, perhaps tied together in a federal or confederal structure.

  1. Politics A: Analysing Theories of the State and Individual - Hobbes and Locke

    had been claimed and there were many people with no land at all. Locke argued that this was justifiable because wealth of the nation was improved by the labour mixed with the land, that even a landless labourer had better food, clothing and lodging than the king of a large fertile but uncultivated country.

  2. Evaluate the different interpretations of the role of the state

    and therefore called for a more paternalistic approach to the state in order to protect the very make up of society. Never the less this improvement of welfare can be criticised mainly by classical liberals who state that individual freedoms were being restricted once again because of the welfare provisions being placed on individuals.

  1. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    The first was that, despite having held the first post-Soviet era election, the party system was actually weakened. This is not to deny the fact that in the crucible of the 1993 election, many of the insignificant parties failed to survive or that there were only six "effective" parliamentary parties

  2. Third parties

    These differences suggest that one may be justified in referring to the American two-party system as masking something more like a hundred-party system. A USA Today, CNN Gallup poll of 1,200 adults from August, 1995 shows the public strongly favors third party and independent candidates.

  1. Assess what should be the role of the state

    This problem is merely exacerbated by the need for a terroristic police force, monopoly on communications and a monopoly of weapons1. It is difficult to understand how anyone could feasibly suggest that, with the possible exception of safer streets, these aspects of state rule might be beneficial to the everyday life of citizens.

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    natural right to tell or force anyone else to do what they do not want to. But very few people, e.g. in Britain today, have expressly consented to obey the law (e.g. by signing a statement promising to do so; only naturalised citizens have done this), and the consent of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work