In the first section of Common Sense, Thomas Paine characterizes government as he sees it, which is still an influential viewpoint. His characterization is perhaps best summed up in his own succinct words: “government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.” These words speak measures to his attitude towards the fundamental nature of government—an attitude that shaped a political party in his time that has evolved over time with the core concept relatively intact. For Paine and modern conservatives alike, government is only rendered necessary due to the inadequacies of moral virtue in running a society. To illustrate this concept, Paine supports his idea with a hypothetical island. When a society develops, it will become necessary for a government to compensate for the eventual defect of moral virtue in individuals.
In the book Anthem, by Ayn Rand, there is an exquisite amount of collectivism shown. Rand may have taken the book to an extreme; however, those measures needed to be taken in order to correctly convey this immense topic. Collectivism is excessively salient for us to understand. Why is it so important? It shows the danger in being too much of a collectivist, and it forces you to realize the momentousness of being an individualist.
In the words of author Ray Comfort, “Rhetoric, which is the use of language to inform or persuade, is very important in shaping public opinion. We are very easily fooled by language and how it is used by others.” It is only human nature to be influenced by others that we idolized, which is why man has developed a means to exploit natural tendencies and supercede those influenced by the masters of rhetoric. Throughout all of history, it can be seen that it is much more beneficial to be articulate and persuasive than to have the desirable political standpoint when it comes to swaying an audience or party. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar demonstrates that rhetorical knowledge is more important that policies or beliefs in gaining political power. When
10, his views of the inevitability of factions. Madison sees factions as potentially harmful to the political process and dangerous to the progress that government can create for its citizens. Using the works of previous authors such as Lock and Montesquieu, Madison realizes that people are naturally going to strive for their own self-interest when given the liberty to do so, “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” (Madison pg. 461). Therefore, despite them being somewhat alarming for a government to deal with, there is no way to rid of factions within a fair and free government.
The concept is one of which authority is divided between our national government and the state governments in order to govern a large area sufficiently. While it can complicate the administration of justice, I think it is key to managing the United States as a whole. It becomes complicated in situations such as Obergefell vs Hodges, where the Surpreme Court makes a decision that applies to every
Securing these rights is the most fundamental responsibility of his government. Also, some people may ask that how the government balances the whim of the state and the whim of the individual. In Jefferson’s perspective, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” (119), what Jefferson really means is that when people feel their safety and happiness are being infringed upon, they have rights to institute a new government. But Jefferson also emphasizes that only when people suffer from “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (119), is it a good way to change the government. People only hurt themselves when they intend to change the government because of some small mistakes.
Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy. Idealism, on the other side values morality as the basis of all relations among nations. It rejects the separation between the mind and the soul in politics. Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated.
I believe that having an official written constitution is crucial to the successful running of a country. I think it is important to have because without having a set of guidelines to follow, making decisions that are already difficult become that much harder. I also believe that a constitution is incredibly important because it sets up rules and rights the everyone must abide by. Most importantly, I think it is necessary to have a written constitution in order to limit the power of the government. Without limiting the power of the government, the rights of the individual would be squashed and our beloved freedom would be lost.
In the text, Morgenthau claims that the realism is based on unchanging human nature, creating “a world of conflicting interests” and conflicts. Morgenthau also believes that we can find the desire to dominate in all kinds of human associations (family, organizations, state …). In addition if some state would be freed from desire for power it would be destructive for it – it would fell victim to the powers of others. Therefore the struggle for power is not only permanent but it is also necessary. Morgenthau closely examines the definition of the concept of power.
These viewers will not let themselves be challenged because the audience feels comfortable with the media that favors the same view. However, truth in journalism is a major key, the audience will never have the whole story if the only media the viewers watch are the ones that share the same views as individual. Like Bernie Goldburg states “It is up to the viewer to want to be challenged, to want to find the truth, by following other sources of media, ones that share different views and beliefs.” The truth is plain and simple, it is obvious that bias does exist in media, very strongly and has control on what is said and shown, however bias does also exist in the viewers as well. Viewers mainly stick close to what they believe and share common ground with. Viewers do not want to be challenged, viewers want to hear the beliefs shared with the media is the truth.
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.
In advising the Chief Justice, it is obvious that the voting districts should be redrawn for a multitude of reasons. As the system of drawing districts stands, it is highly vulnerable to corruption for the party in power, as they are the ones deciding the districts. Concurrently, those in power are incentivized to maintain their power through any means necessary; which, in a democracy, is obtaining the most votes. Because it is extremely difficult determining whether or not the drawing of a district is preferential to one party over another is, the risk to those in power is minimal while the potential payout is high. Thus, short of any moral reasoning to stop them, the likelihood of someone gaming the design of voting districts is high.