"The failure of being a king" What should a king be avoid of in order to keep his or her power? The great philosopher Machiavelli had summed up his philosophy, with reference to the ancient kings. There are some elements that will definitely cause the failure of a king. Both the novel, Macbeth, and the film, The Lion King, show the fall of the kings. Neither Macbeth nor Scar is suitable to be the king because three reasons: they are not legitimate candidates of the king, they are not appreciated by people and they are telling lies and injuring people.
I am firmly opposed to the manipulation of one’s subjects for the better of the ruler. Machiavelli’s concept for a prince’s soldiers is a malicious brainwash. A feared ruler will only induce despise from his people. I regard Machiavelli’s justification for a prince containing aspects of evil to be a unethical form of governing a society. His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness.
Take responsibility for ourselves and understand that the rules and laws were put in place to protect us. Finally, be supportive, support the rules and laws that are in place. Do not constantly talk ill of them because by doing this we are talking ill of this country and disrespecting the rules and laws in place. Be mindful, be responsible, and be supportive of our nations rules and laws. They are here for
Their lack of success depicts Orwell’s belief that over powerful governments in the end, negatively affect their citizens. Governments are needed for the protection of its citizens, but their is a certain extent to where their power should be allowed to go. Governments like the Party is too far simply because they were controlling the citizens rather than just protecting them. The Party wanted to control everything: the members knowledge, emotions, and actions. The Party is not an ideal government.
Huxley was concerned over the community’s value on conformity as he believed it didn’t allow free thought, dissent, or uniqueness. He also feared that conditioning would overcome the importance of the individual. Huxley was intelligent and rational, but people debate if his fears came true in accordance to present day times. With free thought comes disagreement, and with disagreement comes change in society. That is why, when Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, he emphasized the terrors of having no dissension in a civilization.
He did not do anything with anyone else’s thoughts or feelings in mind. Rulers are supposed to do things for the benefit of their country however, that is not what he did. Louis XIV constructed the palace of Versailles, and he also bankrupted France during his reign. This supports the fact that Louis XIV was the best example of an absolute ruler because it shows that he really did not care about what was good for the country, he wanted to have all the control. Among other things, Louis XIV bankrupted France which is never a good thing for a country.
From the beginning, Paine made it clear that government was a necessary evil. But even more so, he made it clear how evil he thought British government was. Paine felt that the constitution of England, although it may have been necessary at the time it was created, was now “imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise…” (8) Moreover, Paine goes on to show his strong distaste for the idea of a king. He mentions how there was a time of no kings, during which there were also no wars. Holland is an example of this, in which he says the country has been without a king and has enjoyed more peace than any monarchial government in Europe.
Nurture" type argument and both men were some of the best in their field. Locke argued that monarchy conflicted with the rights and privileges of the law of nature. Where as Bossuet argued that to go against the right of the king was to go against God. To avoid the sin of blasphemy everyone must acknowledge the king and without question obey his laws. And again, this was exactly what Locke was afraid of because who was to say what a King may demand the people to do.
1. For what reasons was Oedipus responsible for his own destiny and could he have prevented it? First and foremost, Oedipus was an insolent man who needed to have everything he had set an eye. He did not believe in Tiresias prophecy rather blaming him and Creon for a plot against him to get in power. This shows his untrusting nature towards his own as well as his fear of losing power.
I feel that protesting is a weak form of resisting the government, it might catch some attention, but not enough to take the argument anywhere. I also disagree with an individual having the right to resist government, because every American citizen has to abide by some set rules or laws, so it wouldn’t be fair to have one or multiple people not abiding by those requirements. I feel that society would be more chaotic if everyone had the right choose what they wanted to follow. In a perfect world, Henry Thoreau’s methods of civil disobedience would have been a great idea, depending on what laws one was refusing to obey, but in his time period and in ours it just wouldn’t work having everyone doing what pleased them. That’s why the government, as stubborn as it can be and as much as we may disagree with it at times, has to instill laws so that the world can be a calm and orderly
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.