Different opinions have existed throughout the history of political theory as to what connection should exist between citizens and the state in terms of the state’s powers, authority, and individual rights and liberties. For example, a proponent of totalitarianism may argue that the state’s authority and powers trumped residents’ liberties and rights. Totalitarianism would justify a state’s interference with individual rights and liberties because it views the state as a higher organism than the individuals. According to them, if these small organisms (individuals) are to realize their potentials, the state, of which they are a part, must first realize its own potentials before a favorable environment can be created for individuals to realize theirs. Liberals, on the other hand, would argue that people’ rights and liberties should be unconstrained to the maximum extent possible. They have a tendency to see the person in the state as an individual, and they believe he should be given a great deal of freedom to maximize his intrinsic abilities. The goal of this essay is to address a vexing subject in political philosophy: Is there any circumstance under which the government might legitimately interfere with citizens’ rights and liberties? Is it justifiable for humans to be born free and then be enslaved by the artificial organism known as the state?

Logical in the sense that the state is logically obligated to interfere with individual rights and liberties based on their definitions and functions that may be ascribed to persons. The moral argument is based on the functions that the state performs for the citizens, which are ethically good or aimed toward moral purposes.

This essay also aims to resolve J.J. Rousseau’s famous paradox that “Men are born free but are chained everywhere.”

1 This reasoning will use the argument that men require some level of restriction, which they currently lack and to which they should be directed, resulting in them transcending the natural state to a well-organized state.

According to Hegel, there is no authority greater to the sovereign state, and disagreements or conflicts between different individuals in the state are resolved by the state through legislated laws, not by whims and caprices.

According to him, the state is not a freely and consciously constructed human construct based on some type of social compact. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke claim that humans did not choose to construct a state to meet their wants.


There have been many misconceptions concerning the relationship between the state and its citizens, particularly when it comes to power, authority, and rights movement.


This research will aid in the unraveling of the thorny relationship between the state and its citizens in terms of state power and right activism, hence assisting in the maintenance of a cordial relationship between the populace and the state authority.

Leave a Comment