Once the colonist broke free from George they set up a democracy, which divides the power among difference leadership within the government. This prevents a singular ruler from creating unjust rules of law. On top of that these officials are elected by the people, so it is in their best interest to create covenants with the people that are fair for all that. Otherwise these officials will no longer be in office. A representative democracy is the best way to keep society out of the state of nature, and still preserve individuals’ rights.
Emerson would like all the people to become more independent because if they follow the rules, they will become a slave to the laws. His main idea here was to not abide by society’s ways because conforming to society would be submitting to the government, which sets the standards of beliefs and the behaviors of society. Because it goes against Emerson’s ideas of opposition to the mainstream ways, he would want less democracy because a democracy is a group that is indirectly controlled by the agreed majority. 5. Was Emerson a liberal or conservative -- and in what ways?
There is always another side to the story. Federalist, these people supported the constitution. Though they knew that the constitution wasn’t perfection yet, According to document 3 George Washington state 's ”We have errors to correct… would to God, that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend”. George was sure that the constitution wasn’t perfect but that in this time of need they need something like it. They need a strong government, to win over the people who won’t support over fear of loss of natural laws, like mentioned in document 1 “Let us look and behold the distress which prevail in every part of our country… View these things, fellow citizens, and then say we do not require a new, a protection, and efficient federal government if you can” this document was quoted from a newspaper in Massachusetts.
In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
Qutb believed in a vanguard elite that would decide how the self-interested masses would live as they realised the general will of the masses thereby constraining the effect of individualism as less freedom given to decide their own affairs thus promoting a sense of cohesion and unity within the society. On the other hand, Strauss saw the role of the elites in promoting myths to regain control of society. He believed that the elite were to sell the public on the myth of a nation or religion even if they choose to ignore such beliefs themselves. This would have the same effect of curtailing individualism but in a different manner than Qutb’s brotherhood. Another key difference between the two lies in the approach they took to advancing their agenda.
“Although the government can't stop you from joining with a group of others to make your views known, you must do it in a peaceful manner” (The Right To Gather Has Some Restrictions). Every individual has the right to express their feelings and views, however, it shouldn’t irritate others in general peace or encroach on any other person’s right in the
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.
During their imprisonment, they have to lose certain civil rights. Otherwise, it would not be possible to imprison them in the first place. But the right to vote is not a right they have to lose to enable the imprisonment. This right is not automatically excluded considering these two things do not contradict each other. Prisoners should therefore keep their right to vote.
This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law. Obligation to obey the law is only redundant since it is derived from these other moral obligations. If people refrain from doing immoral actions, it is because those actions are morally forbidden not because of the laws that prohibit
the question of freedom for all mankind . . .” (Eidenmuller). There may never be freedom for all but we cant stand alone and be inconsiderate to those that don't have freedom we have. We must play our role in society and relinquish from those countries who don't support freedoms for all their citizens.
He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is. However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power. Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face.
Within today’s society individuals struggle to view one another as allies, rather people categorize other’s as being enemies. This sense of individuals being suspicious of one another is not a concept that is shocking to society. For instance, during the time of the founding father’s established the United States Constitution, there were two groups: the anti federalist and the federalist. The anti-federalist opposed the ratification of the Constitution because these people were eerie of a strong federalized government that infringed on individuals right’s. As the federalist supported the Constitution and advocated that the document protected individuals from government regulations.
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.
Board of education in 1954, focusing on the equal protection clause. Citizens depend on the constitution to make them feel safe and protected, but like Zinn said, “we risk our lives and liberties when we depend on that document to defend them. This is a bad idea that our democracy governs like this. One key fact that Zinn puts out is that the “1st amendment does not determine what we have a right to say and what we want, but it depends on if were courageous enough to speak up the risk of being jailed or fired”. People should not have to worry about losing their lives just because of the simple fact that they are standing up for their rights.