Kant’s Political Writings

0 Comment

However, our choice of leadership may not always be right and appropriate since as men we tend to be wrong at times due to our human nature. Nonetheless, a leader is always needed and we must submit to them irrespective of whether we agree with them fully or not. This was the origin of the supreme rule among men. It was the only way to establish law and order in any social setting irrespective of where that rule comes from. It is therefore an offense to go against the rule of law by organizing any form of resistance to the leaders in authority. Such an action is deemed offensive and should be punished according to the constitution in place. If anyone is against any law or figure of authority, they should find a constitutionally recognized way of placing their complaints without disorganizing or trying to forcefully overrule the structure of power. His approach to leadership in any social setting points to dictatorship and democratic doctrines. These principles cannot coexist hand in hand since one form will take over the other in time. However, these doctrines are beneficial to men in their quest to find stability in their day to day lives. I support his ideology on this subject matter since he gives some pointers to its advantages. He takes us back to the laws of nature that govern the animal and plant kingdoms. According to his third proposition, our full capabilities are only realized when in an organized group and not as an individual. This is because we are social creatures. He gives us an example of trees trying to collectively seek for air and light for their growth and other trees that do not participate in this union but go off on their own. The latter trees grow to be strong and blossom fully while the former do not grow to their full potential. The value of group association is enhanced since it comes with great benefits to the individuals joined in the venture. This does not come easy since they will be some problems experienced in one way or the other. These deviations are to be expected since peace comes with a price. This should be dealt with constitutionally as the people look to the greater picture of a centralized form of governance. The leaders should be capable of providing for its citizens and especially for those unable to do so. It then acquires the right to tax its citizens in a bid to avail certain resources for its entire people. This right to tax should not be abused but used for the greater good of its entire people. The people are then given some privileges by the constitution such as those of voting, legal ownership of property and the right to freedom. The right to rule conferred upon the state is given to it by its citizens. This power should be supreme and the means to an end. The leader should be then having more authority than the people he is ruling over. He can lead his people to a resistance but he must have made claim to his actions and offer protection to his subjects. This resistance could be against the constitution or a part of it. This form of defiance could be unconstitutional since it points to the leader of the resistance as the Supreme authority yet he is meant to be a tool to follow through with the rule of law. This goes against Kant’s principles as it means that there is a flaw in the constitutional framework of the society. This is even graver when a coup is staged by the people who are meant to be subjects upholding the legality of the leadership they choose. Instead they should be able to stage complaints in the most peaceful of manners and if that approach fails, then submitting to the law would come in handy. In the case scenario of the murder of the leader as was seen in the execution of Charles I, there was the deviation from