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
Seldom, do groups remain together for centuries and as evident in the text, conflict is bound to happen. He appeals to logos by defining democracy when he states that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. In a way, this defies the current situation in Great Britain and discusses the offenses Great Britain has committed. In, “…mankind are more disposed..,” he declares that humans prefer to suffer sufferable evils than to abolish those evils they are accustomed to. He expands his purpose by showing an example of human nature and that humans do not like the unknown, even if the unknown may be somewhat positive or beneficial.
In the short story “Harrison Bergeron, equality is clearly misunderstood, therefore I disagree that everyone in the story is equal. Although everyone was suppose to be equal because of the Handicapper General, they weren't. Equal doesn’t mean everyone thinks or speaks on the same level, equal means that everyone has the same opportunity and chances as others do.The correct way to ensure equality is to encourage success and put infrastructure in place to help and motivate those who are born into situations which limit their opportunities, and in this story, the government has not done this. The government’s idea is to enforce equality by handicapping talented people and preventing those with less talent from bettering themselves.In this story, the government's strategy is "equality by limitation." In American society, it should be "equality by opportunity."
Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet. Economics and freedom, according to Marx, are intertwined in such a way that they cannot be separated.
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. We as citizens, should have the ability to know our limits, and obey certain rules without being forced.
Instead, they adopted a concept of positive liberty. In their view, the implementation of negative freedom embodied in the laissez faire liberal economic policies in the most deprived of the freedom of the American people, and almost all of the progressive reformers believe that excessive loyalty to laissez-faire liberalism has seriously damaged the American democracy. Therefore, in order to guarantee people's freedom and maintain democratic system in a very complex industrial society, liberalism must be adjusted and amended, and positive liberty should be used instead of negative freedom. Under the liberalism based on positive freedom, citizens and governments should accept this, and democracy requires the responsibility of society and the protection of
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
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.
In our modern day society, we live in a world in which equity is very important for us to achieve as citizens. Equity can be understood as recognizing that society needs differences in order to be successful. As we are humans, each one of us will be different from everyone else, and it is this difference that adds creativity and color to the world. However, in Kurt Vonnegut 's story "Harrison Bergeron", they live in a future world in which everyone is equal. A society in which the government enforced equality so much that they go to extreme measures to force everyone to be as equal as they possibly can be.
Political liberalism is thought to have two central values -- autonomy and equality, both essential to reinforcing the value of the individual in society. To add on, tolerance is generally thought to go hand in hand with equality. The idea is that in order for every individual to have equal civil liberties and be treated as political equals, others that strongly disagree with their beliefs or lifestyles must at least be tolerant of them. However, the idea of tolerance in itself seems paradoxical. As philosopher Bernard Williams points out in his essay, Toleration: An Impossible Virtue, the biggest puzzle concerning toleration is that “tolerance...is required only for the intolerable” (18).