Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
It is easy to notice that Locke significantly departs from the theory of Hobbes. John Locke to the liberal monarchy. But Hobbes emphasized the absolute power of the state over society and people, and was an authoritarian monarchy. Locke emphasizes something else: people give the state only part of his natural liberty. The Constitution is to limit the power of law, - says Locke.
Hobbes, he defends a philosophical absolutism. The idea that absolute power is not good, because it is supported by God, it is better because it best. Leviathan - a sea monster that is the ruler. Hobbes believes that it is important to have the line to keep us from destroying each other. The government was the state of nature, which means a war of all against all.
This is at odds with Hobbes’ general pessimistic view as believing the sovereign power will act out of the best interest of the people, in the sense that it will protect their lives and ensure the people’s survival without any oversight, is naive and optimistic. If Hobbes’ view is that humans act only out of survival, self-interest, and need for more power, it should follow that the individual leading the common-wealth would do the same and corruption would ensue. So although one may protected from the violence of his neighbor, there is no guarantee that he is protected from the
Thomas Paine opposes the ideology of government, stating that, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil,” (Paine 3). Essentially, the purpose of government is to protect people from preforming vices, and defend their natural right to Locke’s ideology of life, liberty and property. Without government, coercion would occur, and destroy one’s ability to express their natural rights. For America, Paine believes that the establishment of a strong fundamental government could allow for the cohesion of citizens to form a society respected by other nations
Although running a country without a written constitution is doable, I believe that in order to ensure the best chance of having a successful country there must be an official written
Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation. Due to the state of nature being violent, it is optimal for individuals to relinquish their rights to an absolute sovereign.
Therefore, freedom is an illusion. For example, if we wanted to use our freedom of speech toward law enforcement we would face consequences for disrespecting an authority. Although, the first amendment is supposed to protect us, it does not excuse us from hindrance or consequences. The illusion that we have freedom is merely something created by the ruling power because they create and determine what actions the general public are able to do according to the
In the Harm Principle Mill suggests that the actions of individuals should be limited to prevent the harm of others . An individual may do whatever he or she wants, as long as these actions do not harm others. Mill believes in an individual’s autonomy; being self governed. We can live as we wish, and therefor also die as and when we wish. As Mill says: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
For example, he boldly states that “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” This supports Thoreau’s claim because if the government makes a law that forces you to be an agent of injustice, then you have the right to break it. In addition, Thoreau believes that the best government, is the one that does not make a lot of laws. " That government is best which governs least." A government should not dictate to the citizens, but enforce whatever is agreed among the society.
The arguments for strict Construction government Are formed against The View of the best people should rule versus a rule by the people. That the best possible government is one that governs least. Because a smaller government with limited powers is most likely to leave the people alone to enjoy the blessings of liberty. To keep the government small we would insist upon a strict construction or interpretation of the Constitution. the Constitution as we insist means exactly what it says no more and no less.
If the government tried to put the interests of citizens before their own, and not allow the citizens to get punish for what rights are obligated for them then they will see by putting the people first will benefit America as a whole. In my opinion I feel that the constitution is a petty factor for determining the democracy of a government and the rights of the people in that
He believes anyone can rule a polis if they have virtu. Once a ruler, a simple rule to follow to maintain power and not to be hated by the people, is to “not take away a man’s possession or woman”, Machiavelli believes the people will not feel threaten by following this rule, thus maintaining a stable polis. He expresses how “human nature never changes”, and that people are self-interested and they can turn against you once you are not profiting them. A good ruler must have the strength to do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power, which essentially means that even if they have to hurt some of the people for the benefit of the popular mass, then they shall do so for the greater cause. Both Plato and Machiavelli believe that there must be a government in order for human kind to survive.
Would it be alright for the government to infringe these rights to protect us as citizens? There are two sides to this coin, on the first we have the violation of this right set down to protect us. On the other, we have the government’s interest of public safety. Our forefathers had predicted this type of issue. Another founding father, Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Many cultural changes took place during the Enlightenment era in Europe. “This period is also sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason and is considered to begin with the close of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 and ended with the French Revolution in 1789” (Encyclopedia). During the Enlightenment, citizens began to rethink the norms of society. Rulers were trying to reform old policies of the government and try to make it stronger. During the Age of Reason, thinkers believed that people should ensure in social justice and happiness in the world.