Political philosophers: Jean Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke had quite opposing viewpoints, particularly on their political ideals. Rousseau and Burke’s perspectives on what the political system should be are directly influenced by the assumptions held in their personal beliefs on the origins of inequality. While they both articulate their positions, there is a severe lack of evidence and sustenance for the underlying assumptions in Burke’s argument of education and the social hierarchy, which is why Rousseau’s concepts are more compelling. However, when compared economically Burkes concepts have greater value. Rousseau's perspective in the Second Discourse initiated the discussion of inequality by distinguishing between the two types: "moral"
Henry David Thoreau begins his essay Resistance to Civil Government, also known as Civil Disobedience, by stating that governing forces rarely demonstrates itself as useful and that they obtain power from the majority of people simply because the majority is the strongest group, not because their viewpoint is the most reasonable. Thoreau argues that government only exists for the sole purpose of guaranteeing freedom for individuals. He states that he simply wishes for a better government, not to abolish it. The rule of expediency, in Thoreau’s case, can be defined as government officials putting themselves before citizens so that they themselves can be more practical and convenient. Thoreau believes the rule of expediency is an unsatisfactory
For their Culture, they promoted a new society based on their reasoning instead of their traditions. In the Social part, the Third Estate was involved in a caste with its own people and caused equality with the First Estate. For the Financial part, France had bad debt, that led Louis XVI to make further changes to Taxation. Louis XVI faced opposition from Parliaments. I thought these were major effects, and it was very hard for Louis to manage France.
The control of the land is not a real control because one can only control something if one possesses it completely and land is not something that can be truly possessed. Another point O’Sullivan iterates on is how America will have a golden life because its form of government is so prestigious and grand and it is based on morals which is is better than all other governments(paragraph 2). This shows the reader that Americans are trying to control their politics, they’re trying to take hold of a system of governance. They cannot own a government controlled by millions so they cannot truly control it by
The argument of those who believe this way has many components. First, the Electoral College is felt to be an outdated system which is no longer necessary for our elections (The Electoral College). Opponents of the College admit that yes, at one point in time, the Electoral College was a necessary component in electing the President of the Union. However, technology has made it so that the information necessary to make informed decisions about voting is available to the majority of voters (The Electoral College). Voters today are more informed than they were back when the constitution was written and, because of that, placing the final vote in the hands of electors rather than the people is unnecessary.
According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”.
Instead he questions the type of government we really have. He says that because of the Electoral College, checking photo IDs and other suppressions tactics prevent America from being a democracy. In some aspects I agree because out votes really don’t mean a whole lot on certain things. Also requiring certain things to be able to vote takes away the “free” voting and equal votes of the people. He also says we are not a republic because the elected representatives don’t rule in our favor, but in the favor for corporations and billionaires.
Income Inequality Income Inequality or “wage gap” is a big topic for freedom fighters and liberals for the simple fact that it isn’t equal for everyone. Because the wage gap is so prominent it's one of the biggest “facts” that discrimination is still apart of everyday American society. The wage gap from these radical interest groups think the economy is get a dollar take a dollar instead of a free flow economy. This misguided idea of the economy is absolutely not true and isn’t at the fault of the Government, but the people. One of the arguments used is that we could regulate and tax the 1% income because that would be “fair” but these numbers show how harmful that way of thinking is.
The main claim Nixon was transcribing was that qualified individuals, who are not wealthy, should still be able to fairly run for President. He reminisced to a period of a modest President, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and quoted, “God must have loved the common people—he made so many of them” (Nixon). The previous statement tied into many different aspects of Nixon’s speech. For instance, he spoke directly to the common Americans, the individuals that are significantly impacted by the government’s decisions. The leaders of our government need to be able to relate to these individuals to gain votes; if a candidate considers himself superior to the rest of the society because of his inherited money, he will lose.
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I In an ideal democracy, voters will vote for the politicians and policies that can bring the most benefit to themselves, while the rules of the society cares about how to maximize the social welfare as a whole.