Emerson's Idea Of Self-Reliance In Your Own Words Analysis

One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.

What is the meaning of Ego? In today’s world, it means “a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance”, it is to be self-centered and care for nothing else except for one's self or, in other terms, being an individualist. Today, people have been told to care for others instead of themselves, but that is not completely true. For example, Prometheus in Anthem by Ayn Rand- is not what one would consider to be a total egotistical person. Searching through different types of definitions and reasons about the definition of ego, the assumption is that egoism is not immoral or virtuous but the balance in between.

Although his principles are similar to Spencer's, he did believe people should get some help from the government. "He did, unlike Spencer, favor public education... and he also favored efforts to improve the conditions of women and children at work" (Boller 57). This was all the public help Sumner favored. Anything more than this would be socialistic, which is any force that enables people to avoid the struggles for the existence in life. Furthermore, Sumner explains that giving the poor advantages in society would be wrong.

Studies have shown that allowing felons to vote would “help ensure against recidivism and continued antisocial behavior” which would bloom democracy (Faceoff 6). Here, felon enfranchisement supporters argue that eliminating felons from voting leads to lower rates of participation in government. Without a large amount of voter participation, The United States defies its founding Declaration of Independence that aimed to give Americans an equal voice in politics, economy, and government. Therefore, barring felons from voting leads to the direct destruction of the democratic principles of The United States. Additionally, Brennan Center, a non-partisan law institute that focuses on issues of democracy, found that allowing felons to vote would lead to an expansion of democracy (Bernd 5).

First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.

There's certain benefits to thinking this way though. It's very important to keep one's own happiness and well being at the forefront of their mind. People should not be expected to constantly cater to others. Selflessness is completely overrated. Equality is not wrong to want something for himself, especially after servicing others his whole life.

Some of the people felt, The Articles of Confederation, made the national government too weak because of democracy. The Articles of Confederation maintained the principle that the national government would not hold more power than the states, which they saw as sovereign. This did satisfy the fears and questions

Without slavery the South’s economy wouldn’t survive, and the North wanted to end it because they felt that all men were created equal and having slavery wasn’t fulfilling that idea. They eventually created a compromise (the popular sovereignty), which allowed the people of the state to determine if their state would be a slave state. Basically giving the people the power, as a democracy would, to choose if they wanted to have their state with slavery being acceptable or not acceptable. This was caused by Manifest Destiny. In conclusion Manifest Destiny did indeed have an affect on the tension rising between both the slave and free states.

Also, I think that we should get rid of the popular vote. There are so many reasons why we need an Electoral College. The Electoral College keeps the coastal elites from basically choosing whoever they want for president. Many people often get mistaken and believe that the Founders wanted a popular vote and power to the people, however, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about that. If there wasn’t an Electoral College then the smaller states would be at a complete disadvantage.

Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s.

This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval. The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification.

Voltaire is most known for his philosophical ideas including, freedom of speech, love truth and pardon error, God is necessary for governments, the process of thinking logically, and the idea that we are all equal, but virtue separates us. Voltaire knew that it was dangerous to be right when the government was wrong, but governments need to permit freedom of speech among the people. This is, because the people of a country need to the government know when there needs to be a governmental change. François believed that virtue separates us from others, and so we are differentiated by how we treat one another. François Marie Arouet was sent to Tulle in 1715, and imprisoned twice, in 1717 and 1726.

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.

Thoreau alleges people have the right to oppose an oppressive government, it is their duty to rebel against it. If a government does not serve its purpose of protection and fair treatment, the duty of its citizens would be to overrun it. An individual 's liberty is conveyed through its government, by allowing a tyranny, men are giving up their right to think and act for themselves. He declares that if the government mandates the people to follow unfair laws. the people should break those laws.

2- By removing its causes and controlling its effects are the two main ways, they could also by destroying the liberty and by giving every citizen the same opinion passions and interests. Obviously the last two would not work because liberty is essential to have in a government. Also all people do not have the same opinions and passions and interests, in a free nation we are entitled to have our own ideas and passions and such. The only effective way would be to control effects and to try and remove the causes. The main problem would be since people have opinions the causes would be almost impossible to