Final answer:
A belief in power resting with a single ruler aligns with the concept of an absolute monarchy, historically justified by divine rights or philosopher-endorsed merit. Such autocratic systems contrast with democratic or republican forms of government, with modern governance discussions weighing the balance between authoritative rule and people's will.
Step-by-step explanation:
He believed power should rest in a single, all-powerful ruler. This belief is typically associated with the concept of an absolute monarchy, where the monarch has supreme authority and is not subordinate to any other institution or group. Absolute monarchs, like France's Louis XIV, claim a divine right to rule and possess the ability to legislate, impose taxes, and formulate foreign policies without the need to confer with others. This system of governance can be contrasted with a democracy where power is vested in the majority of citizens or with a republic where leaders are elected to represent the people's interests.
Historically, this belief has been justified in various ways, such as divine rights, where the ruler is seen as an earthly representative of a god. In some cases, philosophers like Aristotle have considered the idea of one virtuous ruler as the ideal, although they warned against the potential devolution into tyranny. Today, some countries continue to justify autocratic rule through claims of divine sanction or virtue.
Modern discussions about governance also consider the importance of the general will of the people, and philosophers like Hobbes have argued for a single central authority to maintain peace and avoid discord. However, this perspective also raises concerns about the potential for government abuse and the need for limitation of powers and checks on the rule by a single individual.