Sameness for a society means that each person is the exact same; no individual is superior or inferior to another. Equality for a society means that each person is given the equal opportunities to do what they desire. This opportunity does not guarantee that people will pursue those desires, but the opportunity stays available for them. An example to differentiate sameness and equality are the historic cities of Athens and Sparta. Sparta is a city that enforced sameness within its society, and Athens is a city that celebrated equality within its society.
Of course, there would be freedom for those on the upper rungs of society who benefit from inequality. However, this small segment of the population does not represent the people. Without the base of equality, society would still exist in the past state of aristocracy, and the rights of the people would be surrendered to the limited few who concentrate most of the power. This much was clear to Tocqueville, who attributed the “middle-class and democratic freedom of which the world’s history had not previously provided”(34) to the absence of inequality found in America(33). However, this does not necessarily mean that equality guarantees
While Athenians held such novel freedoms, the fatal flaw of Athenian freedom was its overly collective nature and protection of these freedoms. Athenian demokratia certainly has its merits and proves to have been a system of government and way of life way ahead of its time. The guarantee of political freedom, as the heart of demokratia, is what made the Athenians free. Among the very restricted membership to the citizenry, a system was established that made all citizens free from tyranny. Athenians were also free from invasion and external oppression due to the grandness of the Athenian navy and their monopoly power of the Aegean Sea.
They may be different in many ways, but they all have equal citizenship rights. He wanted to be different, for everyone to be different and have those rights.
The founding fathers believed that the government’s purpose was to secure the unalienable rights of American citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by protecting them against violations by foreign enemies. Although, the progressives believed that the purpose of the government was to give people the benefit of the programs the government have, while making the people more socially responsible. The Founding Fathers believed it was for the greater good of everyone to be free and do things on their own. They thought that if people had less rules and were able to do whatever they want there would be and inequality of the wealthiness.
Comparing and Contrasting Plato’s “Republic” and Cicero’s “On Duties” with an Emphasis on Self-Interest and the Common Good In “Republic”, Plato argues that what is good for the ruler is good for everyone in the society. He claims that self interest derives from the common good; this suggests that according to Plato self-interest and common good are different entities. However in Cicero’s “On Duties”, self-interest and common good are considered to be identical, meaning that what is good for an individual equals what is good for the society. In this paper, I will argue that Cicero’s argument fails because self-interest and the common good are in fact not identical.
“In the early 500s BC a new way of government was invented in Athens. It was "democracy" or " 'rule by the people.” (Doc C) Due to the fact that Athens had developed a democracy, which allowed their men a say in the government process; which helped to avoid civil war. “During time of Pericles citizens were paid for jury service so not only the wealthy could participate.”
I believe a democratic government was the most effective for this time period because it gave the people a voice, which is ideal when you do not want to people to revolt against the government. To start off, democracies make all men equal under the law unlike monarchies. When everyone is equal it gives you a sense of security. Democracies are a type of government that put the people first, giving them rights and equality.
He relates positive meaning of liberty to the concept of distributive justice. Therefore Hayek’s objection for this kind of liberty is related to substantive equality. Actually, the issue in Hayek is obvious; equality and liberty is in contrast. If government tries to promote substantive equality under the name of social justice, then liberty is lost at the expense of substantive equality. When I say ‘substantive justice’, I mean concrete measures taken by institutions and governmental organizations which include equality of opportunity, material subvention for lesser inequality and legal attempts to prevent discrimination.
“Melians (90): It is useful at any rate the way we see it, not to destroy a principle that works for the common good; that one falling in danger should be treated with fairness and justice, and thus benefit from this, if he can persuade his judges, even short of the exact limits.” At this point the Athenians were quite confident in their power, and didn’t need power. Since they were stronger than the Melians, it means that it was better for the Melians to think of their survival and not justice at that point. According to the Athenians, justice would only be considered when both sides are neutral. However, the Melians were not ready to give up on justice as they believed that it was a principle that works for the common
The Great Compromise showed a commitment by the framers to ensuring that no person’s vote be less important because of where they live. The Supreme Court used this and other cases to determine that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society,” (Reynolds v. Sims). Today, it’s easy to assume that we have more equality in our voting system than ever. That conclusion is difficult to reach unfortunately when examining two things: campaign financing and state wealth and political position.
Being Democracy Assemblies are where they let people grant office to people who deserve it through elections (Document A). Not being Democracy They had absolute authority of military and fighting wars and can spend as much public money as they wanted (Document A). Being Democracy
Andrew Jackson emerged as a war hero from the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. In the election of 1828, Jackson’s campaign brought the common man into voting booths by sweeping votes in the south and west, mainly agrarian farmers and frontiersmen looking to expand west, while John Quincy Adams took most of the Old Federalist votes in the New England region. While Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the Constitution and protectors of political democracy, individual freedoms and equality in terms of economic opportunity, they also took credit for increased white male suffrage, as voting participation increased dramatically through the Jackson era. However, the problems such as slavery, Indian removal policies, woman’s and
Democracy is what we call a formation of government where citizens and group of people can vote on laws. The Roman Republic did not have a well developed formation of their government but it did have the qualifications of democracy. There were pros and cons of voting in the Roman times such as anybody can vote. According to Professor Millar, he says, “Every adult male citizen, unless specifically disqualified, had a vote, and there was no formal exclusion of the poor. Free slaves could also vote.”
Athens and China many appear very different, but I think they are more similar than they appear. In China since it there was a lot of power in the hands of the Emperor some people might expect that the citizens in China had little to do with the government. However like Athens the citizens did take part in the government. China still was supported and involved the people in the government like Athens. Document 2 states “Those who ruled are supported by those who are ruled.”