For those of us who want to say thank you to our moms, it’s not always easy to put those big feelings in words. Which is where Dribbble comes in.

These eight shots crystallize the hard work moms put into keeping their kids alive, happy, and healthy. They might give you the inspiration you need for filling out that card—or stand alone for your mom’s interpretation.

Moms are the ones who bandage our boo-boos when we’re little and continue to take care of us as we get older—often sacrificing their own needs so they can help with ours. Cruising on a bike to help heal our injuries is the most mom thing one can do.

Moms are the ones who bandage our boo-boos when we’re little and continue to take care of us as we get older—often sacrificing their own needs so they can help with ours. Cruising on a bike to help heal our injuries is the most mom thing one can do.

They’re the ones we rely on for playdates and emotional support, homework help and babysitting. Moms are the ultimate dependable support. Like, hopefully, the button on your jeans.

Here come the moms in space

Moms are like…buttons? Moms are like glue. Moms are like pizza crusts. Moms are the ones who make sure things happen—from birth to school lunch.

They’re the ones we rely on for playdates and emotional support, homework help and babysitting. Moms are the ultimate dependable support. Like, hopefully, the button on your jeans.

My hero when I was a kid was my mom. Same for everyone I knew. Moms are untouchable. They’re elegant, smart, beautiful, kind…everything we want to be. At 29 years old, my favorite compliment is being told that I look like my mom. Seeing myself in her image, like this daughter up top, makes me so proud of how far I’ve come, and so thankful for where I come from.

Unordered list style?

• The refractor telescope uses a convex lens to focus the light on the eyepiece.
• The reflector telescope has a concave lens which means it bends in. It uses mirrors to focus the image that you eventually see.
• Collimation is a term for how well tuned the telescope is to give you a good clear image of what you are looking at. You want your telescope to have good collimation so you are not getting a false image of the celestial body.
• Aperture is a fancy word for how big the lens of your telescope is. But it’s an important word because the aperture of the lens is the key to how powerful your telescope is. Magnification has nothing to do with it, its all in the aperture.
• Focuser is the housing that keeps the eyepiece of the telescope, or what you will look through, in place. The focuser has to be stable and in good repair for you to have an image you can rely on.
• Mount and Wedge. Both of these terms refer to the tripod your telescope sits on. The mount is the actual tripod and the wedge is the device that lets you attach the telescope to the mount.

Moms are like…buttons? Moms are like glue. Moms are like pizza crusts. Moms are the ones who make sure things happen—from birth to school lunch.

They’re the ones we rely on for playdates and emotional support, homework help and babysitting. Moms are the ultimate dependable support. Like, hopefully, the button on your jeans.

My hero when I was a kid was my mom. Same for everyone I knew. Moms are untouchable. They’re elegant, smart, beautiful, kind…everything we want to be. At 29 years old, my favorite compliment is being told that I look like my mom. Seeing myself in her image, like this daughter up top, makes me so proud of how far I’ve come, and so thankful for where I come from.

Want to see more Dribbble shots?

Moms are like…buttons? Moms are like glue. Moms are like pizza crusts. Moms are the ones who make sure things happen—from birth to school lunch.

They’re the ones we rely on for playdates and emotional support, homework help and babysitting. Moms are the ultimate dependable support. Like, hopefully, the button on your jeans.

Want to see more Dribbble shots?

My hero when I was a kid was my mom. Same for everyone I knew. Moms are untouchable. They’re elegant, smart, beautiful, kind…everything we want to be. At 29 years old, my favorite compliment is being told that I look like my mom. Seeing myself in her image, like this daughter up top, makes me so proud of how far I’ve come, and so thankful for where I come from.

Libertarian Resistance

In Locke’s second treatise from the section of the Second Treatise of Government from his book Two Treatises of Government he states, “But if… the people… are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, how will they be hindered from resisting illegal force used against them, I cannot tell,” (Locke §209). This essay will cover the political philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, specifically their ideas on resistance to political authority and what qualifications there are needed in order to justify such resistance, if any, as depicted in their respective work of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Hobbes’ Leviathan. More specifically, it is held that Hobbes does not permit resistance to a sovereign, whereas Locke not only justifies resistance, he stipulates it may in fact be a duty to rebel an unjust sovereign. I shall also provide my contentions.

In order to resist a sovereign power, or the state, from the perspective of these two philosophers, we must briefly look at the origins of the political state from the state of nature and what roles these sovereigns play, as these philosophers disagree with one another. If a philosophy suggests that no matter what a state does to its people is permissible, then that philosophy and those that follow it will tend to not support an ideology of rebellion against that state. The origin of the state also helps to determine the justification for the authority of that government and to determine its legitimacy, if there is any.

For Thomas Hobbes, political society aroused from a chaotic state of nature “where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal… and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes L.13). In the state of nature, according to Hobbes, mankind had Liberty, but once these people decided to enter into a sovereign state to escape the “brutish” state of nature, they had made a ‘social covenant’ in which they lost their Liberty while allowing only the sovereign government to possess such. Various states emerged, and each society decided, hypothetically speaking, what form of government they wished to have, e.g. democracy, monarchy, etc. Once those established political states were in place, it is the duty of the citizens of those states to obey the respective laws set forth as to not disempower the legitimacy of that state ran system or to undermine its sovereign authority. Hobbes is prone to appealing to ‘positive law’ theory where rights and privileges are solely given by the state, and laws are to always be obeyed no matter their consequences. This, in turn, provides absolute sovereignty to the established governing state.

Hobbes does provide one caveat for defense against others, and that is the means of self-defense as a right extended from reason, even making it rationally required. This pertains to immediate threat of life or the possibility of immediate severe injury. All other ‘threats’ are to be taken to the state through the particular steps required by that sovereign. So, Hobbes would suggest that if one’s life is in immediate, or imminent, danger, then a person will naturally defend his or her self by all means necessary, even against a state. This still does not determine whether a person resisting this threat to their life from a state is ‘right,’ since Hobbes believes that one’s ‘right’ is decided by the state itself (Hobbes L.14). Nevertheless, Hobbes’ use of protection as a means of preservation does not permit preemptive measures for self-defense. His idea of a sovereign is that whatever system is in place is for the best interest of the governing and the governed alike, while his philosophy perpetuates the notion that a sovereign power will not tend towards absolute despotism in matters of threatening the immediate lives of its citizens as that would not be the best interest of the state. For the political state to continue to thrive, it needs its citizens to obey and to continue providing for its longevity and abundance.

If in Hobbes’ proposed sovereign political state the system itself worked towards the slow, perpetual, erosion of individual rights through lawful processes, and it still benefited the governing power, while simultaneously incentivized the citizenry to provide for the political society, without immediately threatening the lives of its citizens, it could eventually degrade people to mere slaves. Perhaps, Hobbes would disagree with this sentiment since he suggests people saw the opportunity of protectionism in a civil society, so they gave up their Liberty to the state. Once these people were in the state and the social covenant was in order, they were not deemed ‘slaves,’ rather ‘servants,’ (Hobbes L.20). If this is simply a matter of word use, then in either definition the people are reduced to the arbitrary will of the sovereign.

With Hobbes’ origin of the political state by means of a hypothetical social covenant, the loss of individual Liberty aside from that of the sovereign, the establishment of a sovereign power, and the reduction of individuals to the arbitrary will of the state as stipulated by both ‘positive law’ theory and Hobbes’ philosophy, it is clear that a preemptive rebellion is not permissible or justifiable within the constraints of his political philosophy. Any rebellion by the citizenry from being threatened loss of life by the sovereign is not ‘justified’ since, according to Hobbes, the sovereign determines ‘rights’ and fairness accordingly, but it is ‘reasonable,’ in that it is man’s natural inclination to protect himself from an immediate attack on his life. This ‘reasonable’ rebellion as an act of self-defense would require the threat of life in order to be valid. It would surely ‘justifiable’ by others to resist this particular sovereign if, and when, it is attacking a foreign sovereign nation by those being attacked. That rebellion would be justified as either preemptive or immediate, equally.

John Locke has a different view of the origin of the political state and when it is permissible to resist a state in an act of rebellion or revolution. First, turning to Locke’s origin of the political state from man’s state of nature, Locke sees that some peoples lived in warlike conditions as Hobbes suggested, but some also lived harmoniously with others. This is crucial to understand in that Locke, unlike Hobbes, does not make the alternative to political society one in which no one would ever want to return, i.e. a brutish war against all. Within Locke’s state of nature, mankind still agrees to a ‘social contract,’ of sorts, but it required the voluntary agreement of peoples, whether tacit or explicit, in order to produce a political state. This political state does not require people to give up their Liberty, as Locke does not see that as possible. Locke specifies that people gave up their natural freedoms, such as punishing ‘extrajudicially,’ when entering into a sovereign state, but that state is to protect every individual’s Life, Liberty, and Property. This is because Justice, according to Locke, requires a sovereign state (Locke §9).

Locke goes further to suggest that from man’s very nature there are ‘natural laws’ which govern the way people interact with one another, and these ‘laws’ are ‘prelegal.’ This means that man’s nature as a rational animal determines certain behaviors to be good or bad, for example such bad acts as murdering, stealing, and so forth. That is to say, no legitimate sovereign state can alienate these natural laws, or inclinations towards these universal truths, and remain legitimate with impunity- they are to be resisted or punished in order that equality under the law, i.e. Justice, to remain intact.

Explicitly, John Locke speaks against corrupt governments that wish to act unjustly, taking more than their fair share. He suggests that when the original social contract was agreed upon by the common man with the would-be sovereign state, certain natural freedoms were given up in order for Justice to be enacted as a protection for Life, Liberty, and Property. The sovereign, in turn, agreed to act as arbitrator of Justice and protect the aforementioned, and they shall be in power reigning as sovereign over the society. Like a contract, when one side breaks their side of the agreement, the contract is then void or goes through another arbitration. When it is the sovereign state that is the legal arbitrator, the discussion generally goes to being void as there are no other arbitrators other than the citizenry versus the sovereign. If the sovereign disagrees with the terms provided by the commonwealth in order to satiate sought recompense, the only means left for the commonwealth is to forcefully overthrow the sovereign state (Locke §227–230).

Locke’s political philosophy justifies rebelling against a tyrannical government through revolution when Life, Liberty, and Property are not being protected by the sovereign. This gives rise to not only the collective to make such a decision to rebel, but also the individual- although it would not be advisable. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke does not believe there is a mere ‘right’ to defend one’s self against only imminent danger, but in fact he stipulates there is a ‘duty’ or ‘obligation’ to do resist since he held that people are not the sole owners of themselves as they are ultimately owned by God; for it was God and nature that determined ‘natural law’ and these universally exceed that of any state and we are ultimately bound to obey these, according to Locke (Locke §6). Moreover, this means that the same ‘duty’ of self-defense, for Locke, also applies to justifying rebelling against an unjust government, returning man to a state of nature until possibly reestablishing a just sovereign in the prior’s place (Locke §229). For Locke, this resistance can be in response to immediacy or preemptive when a sovereign is acting in aggression or negligence from their duty to serve as protector of Life, Liberty, and Property.

Clearly, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have differing philosophies on the original state of man in nature and the progression to a political state, although there are some similarities. They both held a type of social covenant, or contract, theory for the development of political society, and they both put certain juridical powers into the hands of a fewer number of people, i.e. the sovereign. Both maintained that the state was necessary for Justice to be established and maintained. However, where Hobbes negates Liberty, Locke held that no one can ever rid themselves of their natural God-given Liberty. Perhaps it is in this very concept of ‘Liberty,’ specifically, that allows one to justify reasons to resist a sovereign state to the point of rebellion or revolution.

It is important to know that Hobbes’ theory of a social ‘covenant’ means that it is ongoing through all trouble, much like the way marriage was once seen in many cultures as being broken by death alone as in a marriage ‘covenant.’ Whereas Locke’s social ‘contract’ means both parties are held accountable for their actions and have certain stipulated roles and responsibilities in order to maintain the contractual agreement. Hobbes’ origin of the state also negates the means by which a sovereign took power. This means that if a band of thieves got together and forced people into the agreement of a social covenant, then it is negated under normal legal contexts, but Hobbes thinks nothing of it. This is why his social covenant rests on a ‘hypothetical’ theory, while Locke’s is a ‘historical’ social contract model meaning he believed the origin of the means of power held by the sovereign actually matters. For Locke, the same ‘band of thieves’ example nullifies the entire contract.

As pertaining to Hobbes, I do agree that the state of nature can be brutish and difficult, as I see man’s state of nature as being poor. Man is forced to work and toil in order to survive, much less to thrive. I do not believe all mankind was at a constant state of war or fear of war, because I see that man by his nature is sociable and desires to be involved with others as it is the best means of survival and thriving; so, in this sense I am more likened to Locke. It was easier to eat when people worked together to hunt, gather, or to farm, than it was for them to do it alone or with few. This division of labor allowed man to work on one thing, or few things, at a time and complete the task at hand. Whereas if a man was left to do it alone, he could not get done enough things by the end of the day to survive the next with ease. So, man communicates his intentions peacefully as to get the most in return. Furthermore, my description of man in a state of nature, shows him as being with reason and sociable within a voluntary society sans political jurisdiction.

Man is a sociable and reasonable animal by his nature, governance is a natural means of communicating and conducting one’s self without the need of a government to force peaceful exchange. We have rules to follow everywhere we go, and even make them binding to ourselves. Indeed, some people do not obey those set rules, and that is why a sovereign government is necessary to establish Justice as equality under the non-subjective law and the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property, to discourage infringements and enforce this principle of Justice.

Once a sovereign state was agreed upon through non-coercive, voluntary, means, it was then the state’s sole responsibility to protect and enforce laws in regards to Life, Liberty, and Property, in a negative sense- meaning to “live and let live” as to not infringe upon others’. Again, like Locke, I agree there is a responsibility of the sovereign to protect those and not submit people under an arbitrary will of another, and when the state fails to do this they are to be resisted. At what point that resistance is to be determined is the difficult part to suggest. Out of immediacy, surely, one is to protect themselves when a state or anyone is attacking them or threatening their life, and they are justified in doing so. It would then be justifiable if the sovereign were systematically infringing upon the Life, Liberty, and Property of its protected citizenry. Nevertheless, I do not think bloodshed is the best solution as the first response to said infringements. In order to ensure the ongoing protection of the aforementioned, it is necessary to go about establishing better protections of them through peaceful measures of legality as swiftly as possible, and to encourage people in political power to intentionally disobey positive laws that infringe on those natural rights, while they also encourage citizens to disobey. It is my position that it is an obligation to disobey and resist unjust laws, and to quickly weed them out of the legal system, striking them at the root, as to prevent them from growing too large, or re-spawning, that they choke the life of Liberty from existence.

If peaceful legal measures fail time and time again, then war is the only answer and masses will voluntarily organize as to disassemble the tarnished sovereign. Thus, casting man back into a state of nature, which is not as bad as one may initially fear, until a new system of Justice can be propagated that honors the negative natural law in protection of Life, Liberty, and Property, with equality under the law for all.

Works Cited:

Hobbes, Thomas. Westerfeld, Scott, and Keith Thompson. Leviathan. Simon Pulse, 2010.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Book Jungle, 2010.