澳洲悉尼作业代写:权力的分配

那么，最后一个要回答的问题就是权力的分配是否合理。幸运的是,洛克解决这一问题,认为“君主的绝对权力的不便,继承是容易声称“永远不可能与“平衡政府的权力,通过将几个部分在不同的手”,在这一过程中,公民”既不觉得专制统治的压迫,也没有时尚的时代,也不是他们的财产,或livinga方式给他们任何理由逮捕或提供。对洛克来说，主权是从人民借给立法机构的“至高无上的权力”，通过在行政机构和其他政府机构之间划分职责来制定照顾公共利益的法律。权力很容易、有益和安全分成不同的身体:很容易由于洛克的解雇霍布斯的矛盾的反对这样做,有益的,因为劳动分工可以提高效率和更大的生产力,和安全,因为权力充当一组分工制衡保护人民免受任意滥用。就像看起来主权是可以分割的一样?答案是，对霍布斯的让步出现在特权的概念中，这是对洛克理论在实践中作用方式的有力修正。洛克在第十四章中承认，法律的自然通用性使得它不适用于某些案件，也无法涵盖所有的可能性。因此，行政人员被赋予特权，即“为了公共利益而根据自由裁量权行事的权力，不受法律的规定，有时甚至违反法律”。霍布斯可能会认为这是承认洛克的立法理论是有缺陷的，行政部门确实拥有至高无上的权力，作为法律的创造者和执行者。然而，这将是一种严重的误解。

澳洲悉尼作业代写:权力的分配

The last question to answer, then, is whether the division of power is good. Luckily, Locke tackles this issue, arguing that “the inconveniences of absolute power, which monarchy in succession was apt to lay claim to” could never compete with “balancing the power of government, by placing several parts of it in different hands” for in doing so, citizens “neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions, or way of living…give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it. For Locke sovereignty is the “supreme power” on loan from the people to the legislative to set laws that look after the public good by dividing duties amongst the executive and other governmental agencies. Power is easily, helpfully, and safely split up into different bodies: easily due to Locke’s dismissal of Hobbes’s contradictory objection to doing so, helpfully because the division of labor allows for increased efficiency and greater productivity, and safely because the division of powers acts as a set of checks and balances to protect the people from arbitrary abuse.Just as it seems that the question Can sovereignty be divided? is answered, a concession of sorts to Hobbes appears with the concept of prerogative, a powerful modification of the way Locke’s theory functions in practice. Locke concedes in Chapter XIV that the natural generality of law makes it inapplicable to certain cases and unable to cover every eventuality. The executive is therefore invested with prerogative, the “power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it” (Locke 84). It is possible that Hobbes would see this as an admission that Locke’s legislative theory is flawed, that the executive does indeed hold supreme power, as both creator and enforcer of laws. This, however, would be a serious misinterpretation.

如果你在悉尼读书遇到学术问题需要帮助可以联系我们精湛的 悉尼论文代写服务