The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
This is similar to Emerson's abstract idea of rejecting all government and determining actions based on only his ideas. Thoreau continues on the idea Emerson proposed of individuals rejecting society and its negative influences on the individual and the human mind. Thoreau highlights that many people believe that we have control over government, but instead it has control over us, "We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us" (201). Thoreau would go so far to suggest that, "The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies" (164). This shows the severity that almost all men have been subject to assuming a false sense of conformity due to the control of government over our everyday lives.
Despite checks and balances, the Anti-Federalists considered that these branches composed of Elites, and were afraid that Elites would grant the too much power among the branches. In fact, the real power that that the middle class had for role in the Constitution was to elect the member of House of Representatives, which they had less power in the three branches. According to Brutus in Letter number IV of the Anti-federalist Papers, each state should have an equal, full, and fair representation, without this it cannot be a free government (Document F). This would lead the common man to no voices among these three branches. The purpose of the creating the Constitution was to create a strong federal government that would
The assumptions behind A Theory of Justice are essentially redistributive: That is, Rawls posits equal distribution of resources as the desirable state and then argues that inequality can be justified only by benefits for the least advantaged. Nozick points out “that resources are produced by people and that people have rights to the things they produce. Thus, attempts to improve the condition of the least advantaged through redistribution are unjust because they make some people work involuntarily for others and deprive people of the goods and opportunities they have created through time and effort.” The rational human individuals might be able to choose a social structure with greater rewards for the majority of people and small rewards for the minority on the grounds that one is more likely to end up as part of a majority than a minority. Legal justice is generally considered a matter of appropriate
I do not blame the top 1% for the economic downfall of the lower class, but I see larger social problems as the main source especially in American Society. I believe all are created equal and although, some may be born into opportunity, everyone has an equal chance to make opportunity, but first they have to get away from
He argues that both oligarchies and democracies have a wrong distribution structure. Oligarch believe that wealthy deserve more of the resources, whereas democracy argues for equality of distribution no matter what the person’ merits are. He is against both; neither wealth nor equality is the priority in city-states. Instead, Aristotle states “the good life is the end of the city-state,”, and the good life entails noble actions. (as cited in Miller, 2012).
His social contract was designed for people to give away their rights for an exchange of governmental protection. However, Rousseau pertains to the American Revolution, and French Revolution because by his premise the Americans, and the French wanted equality. The Americans, and French came together through collectivism measures, and gave up their rights for equal gains. Rousseau philosophy was on the poor, or people with no power which clearly can be interpreted within the Revolutions.
As seen in dystopian literature, failed government made decisions involving restriction of information, independent thought, and freedom in its entirety can be the cause of corruption of a utopia. The goal of the governments of many dystopian societies is to achieve “sameness” among all citizens. It is believed that all conflict will be eliminated by attaining complete equality in all categories. Through the use of government in dystopian worlds, dystopian literature suggests that “sameness” is a key aspect to a successful society. There are multiple methods that the government in The Giver uses to enforce sameness among the community.
All citizens want equality, but if everyone is equal, no single person has the right to claim authority. As such, the only way to rule society is to listen to the majority. This is where the real danger is, it is easy to fall subject to the tyranny of the majority which can easily lead to despotism. The tyranny of the majority is when the majority places its own interests above those in the minority. Additionally, “as conditions are equalized in a people, individuals appear smaller and society seems greater”, this notion gives off the appearance that social power is greater than individual power, thus, people are more willing to give up individual thoughts in favor of the majority (Tocqueville, V2, P4, CH2, pg.641).
Civil Rights Liberalism sought to provide individuals the rights that they should have. Individuals are capable of making decisions for themselves. Free Market Conservatism sets out to diminish government interference. Individualist Conservatives believe that most problems arise “mainly from too much government, which means too much government interference in the operations of the free market” (113). Their solution is considerably simplistic, to “get government off their backs!