Extended Essays 2021

to rebel is granted by the state, as Donald Trump attempts here. Though this is refuted

by Kant’s premise that without election, any action aimed at replacing government is

inauthentic. Trump acts independently of the democratic system of the United States

of America as he positions this call to action. As a result, the insurrection of the Capitol

Riot is deemed as being unsound, hindering democracy rather than aiding it.

Conclusion

Thomas Hobbes’s rational of order, though presenting a seemingly cogent premise for

absolute power and control, is illogical through the application of the empirical

evidence of the Bus Boycotts of 1955. Objections conveyed by Hannah Arendt

regarding the effectiveness of Civil Disobedience hinders Hobbes’s insistence for

peaceful submission. This cannot be effectively remedied by Immanuel Kant’s premise

for morality and justice as properties only belonging to the state. Contrastingly, Locke,

through his permissibility of insurrection, puts forth a valid analytic argument that

effectively withstands the criticisms of Sir Robert Filmer. In addition, Philip Hunton

strengthened Locke’s claims in the face of opposition.

The Capitol Riot by the ‘Boogaloo Boyz,’ and others was found to be both illogical and

poorly founded following synthesis of the events. Empirical evaluation of the riots when

applying concepts of Hobbes and Locke deem them as being unjust and illegitimate,

regardless of opposing political beliefs. Hobbes’s argument concludes this as all

fighting causes injustice, regardless of any motive. Locke, on the other hand,

maintains through the concept of ‘tacit consent,’ that as both one’s welfare and

consent have been preserved, the grounds for rebellion are illegitimate. The premises

for the permissibility of insurrection are not met by the ‘Boogaloo’s,’ objectives.

17