James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.
The purpose of the state is to carry out the function of bringing these goals to the people - the only thing that matters is that the state abides to the contract. No matter how it is achieved, as long as the state does it, the people cannot object. For example, a state might ban dissents even if they are factually accurate, because from a utilitarian perspective it is better off if people do not know about the limitations of the state as they would be more satisfied with it, hence less likely to revolt. Hobbes might say that it is this order that keeps the state from chaos, thus the people - suppose they feel repressed from the rigidity - cannot object to the state, because it does what it can do to keep society from breaking apart. The fact that the state does what it can - by limiting free speech - is a way of achieving their end goal of securing safety and peace.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists both have an arguable amount of supporters. I am in favor of the Anti-Federalist point of view. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts. They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen. In addition the Constitution allows the government too much power,does not provide for a republican government, and it also does not include a Bill of Rights, which is vital.
When a ruler makes a mistake and the subjects perform what is disadvantageous for the ruler, then this is most certainly not the ruler taking advantage of the subjects. By having a disadvantage performed, the ruler is no longer stronger than the subject and is at the disadvantage. What Socrates says in response to Thrasymachus’ claim is that since rulers sometimes make mistakes and put out laws that may create a disadvantage for them, then rulers are not in the superior position. We must recall that Thras’ original claim was that justice meant having an advantage over the weak, but this advantage is lost in this type of situation since the ruler is then at a disadvantage rather an
“A bill that can be repealed or amended with a majority vote in Parliament, for example, is a weaker protector than one that is removed from the day-to-day affairs of government business”. Since The Human Rights Act 1998 is not constitutionally entrenched it is just an ordinary bill which can be easily repealed by Parliament and lose its main powers to protect Individuals rights. Secondly, it is obvious and stated by various academics that judges in United Kingdom have limited powers in deciding cases under this act. This Act “allows judges simply to alert government of inconsistencies” it is clearly a weak model for protecting human rights. Human Rights Act provided a new basis for judicial interpretation but “not a basis for striking down any part of it.” Domestic courts are put in a position of a problem solver but their “hands” are bind really tight and it is hard to protect human rights since so many prohibitions are implemented.
To quote Berlin, “Coercion frustrates human desires, but it can be applied to prevent greater evils. Non-interference, on the other hand, is the opposite of coercion, is good, but not the only good.” This is supposedly the ‘negative’ conception of liberty in its classical form. Secondly, Berlin believes that this negative notion is comparatively new. Thirdly, liberty, in this sense, is principally concerned with ‘the area of control, not with its source’. He believes that negative freedom is not logically related to democracy or self-government.
Federalists believed political participation should be limited to electing virtuous people, and private political organizations and commentary were illegitimate to interfere. Sedition laws illustrate both state and federal government's’ commitment to regulating speech considered threatening to the public good. The only acceptable defense for those accused of violating sedition laws was “truth for good reason”. Meaning that free speech regarding government officials was limited to the truthful criticism of government that promoted the public good. While Judicial Review still did not provide much protection for free speech, it is important to note a slight shift upwards from the previous era.
Although political action is not guided by universal moral principles, it does have moral significance. Using the domestic order as evidence, Morgenthau states “[i]t is not the legal order which ultimately enforces compliance with its limitations upon the holders of governmental power (…) In other words, at the basis of the legal order there is moral order” (Morgenthau, 1945, p. 147), which ultimately ensures compliance with the law. On the international level, that moral order is absent, making collective security
What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged. In addition, this argument is cogent in deductive logic. British constitutional democracy follows the rule of laws, but there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy, so it is illegal to abolish the monarchy; therefore, the UK should not abolish the monarchy. In short, the deductive logic used in this argument is convincing for the audience. However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy.
How does Rousseau conceive the relationship between democracy and freedom? What are the main merits of and problems with his approach? Although the Social Contract promises freedom to the members of the state this freedom does not automatically include democracy. Democracy is suggested as a possible form of government alongside aristocracy and monarchy whereas today it is arguable that democracy is seen as the only form which denotes a free people. Freedom could well be defined as "having a say in political decision making" but Rousseau 's idea of freedom is from one 's own natural desires so it is possible to be a good citizen and lead a more fulfilling life.