MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS

MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS

2.2 ORIGIN OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.
Rights and liberties are provided by the state and are safeguarded by the state under a situation reminiscent of a contractual condition, rights and liberties are provided to make men actualize their aims, ambitions and aspiration within the state such rights and liberties range from political, legal as we have earlier argued are not in existent. This is because the state based its formation is artificial and if we regard rights and liberties as natural, it then means that such rights and liberties as natural, it then means that such right and liberties cannot than be discussed within the ambits of an artificial state.
Since rights and liberties could not be said to be natural for the very fact that they must not be discussed outside the conception of a state, it becomes pertinent to note here that the origins of rights and liberties could also be traced to the very idea of states formation, such theories of state formation includes the social contract, evolutionary, the theory of force and so on6. Most of these theories had earlier been discussed in the first chapter, but an elaborate analysis would be made on the social contract theory to enable us know the origin of rights and liberties. Following the theory of the social contract, it is believed that the modern state was formed through a contract between man and man in the society. This contract was necessitated as a result of the problems that characterized the original state of man called the ‘state of nature’. The subsequent formation of a state gave right to individual rights and liberties.
The philosophers that held the view of this contract theory were Thomas Hobbes, John Hocke, J.J. Rousseau.
Thomas Hobbes aloe would be used to discuss this very issue of rights and liberties. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was an English man who started his political inquiry (the levitation 1651) with an analysis of human nature. According to him, man is essentially selfish, he is moved to action not by his intellect or reason, but by his appetites, desire and passion, Men living in a condition which is called natures, and such a war as is of every man against every man, not war in the organized sense but a perpetual struggle of all against all, competition, differences and love of glory being the three man causes. The life of man was solitarily, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Since this situation did not permit peace and harmonious living in the society a contract hand to be made, the essence of this contract was for man to give the liberties he had in the state of nature to a sovereign body, such liberty was the rights of self preservation which was inconsistent with living in peace. A space coercive power is instituted. The contracting parties are not the community and state, but the citizens and citizens. According to Hobbes, every man says to every other – 1 authorities and give up my rights of governing myself to this man or this assembly of men (government) on this condition that thou give thy rights to him and authorize all his actions in like manner.
A state is thus created; certain consequences follow from the certain of a state.
a. Government is sovereign and the sovereign power is absolute.
b. The sovereign law is, in general not counsel but command.
c. The rights and liberties of subject consist of these rights, which the sovereign (state) permitted.
Since the contract had been formed, the state now gives out the individual rights and liberties such as right to acquire properties etc.moral justification
The state having issued out such rights are now duty bound to protect such rights to make sure that no particular individual is at a lose.moral justification
From the foregoing therefore, it is quite clear that though there were what could generally be referred to as natural rights in the state of nature, the fact remains that the civil rights and liberties while is the concern of this essay originated from the formation of a modern state.moral justification
2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS.
There is a very close relation between the state and rights and liberties of citizens, the state according to Kelsen, Hegel and Rousseau is a total order, peace and security for its citizens.moral justification
Therefore, creating a food habitat or environment for them to actualize their potentials which is the only condition by which Aristotle will regard the state as good.7 moral justification
These state close by providing for law enforcement agents to prevent violence that might obviate a peaceful atmosphere.moral justification
The relationship that exists between the state and the citizen’s rights and liberties is that of father and son, the state performs paternal functions in protecting the rights and liberties of the citizens while the citizens who are the sons are duty bound to obeying the state if their potentials are to be actualized. moral justification Every state irrespective of its population size and economic potentials strives to population peaceful relations among it people, each state must have a way of taking care of problems faced by the citizens, and each state has a duty to provide employment opportunities for its people who in turn have their own privileges and duties to that state. moral justification Every state helps to make life easier for its citizens by providing good roads, bridges, water, electricity and other infrastructural facilities.moral justification

PAGES 78