However, despite being a proper citizen is related to being a desirable person, every citizen is not always a good person. What’s more, citizens are identical, i.e., the ones who have the power and are in control are equal to the ones who are being ruled, no one is superior nor inferior, and there is a political authority that is used to satisfy these common
This is why Economic Freedom is a major undemocratic feature of Colonial America. Equality is an undemocratic feature of Colonial America that is debated if it is good or not. Equality means that all people have the same equal rights. I think equality is a good feature because it stops people from have too little or too much power. Equality is also big because the people that have little power now have the same power as the people with lots of power.
The quote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” summarizes what Harrison is fighting for. The year 2081, there is finally equality, but to be made equal there are many individuals that are made handicapped because they are better than everyone else. Harrison is one that is made handicapped and tension arose between the handicap general and Harrison. Harrison believed that being handicapped stops him from showing his full potential.
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
was an icon and celebrity to many in this era. He is honored every January for his contributions when we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. He was brave, courageous, and peaceful in his action when fighting for racial equality. King knew that his actions and words could result in his death but that didn't cause him to back down. He looked fear right in the eye and was not going to back down.
For example, in case of a legal dispute, the White is more likely to emerge victorious no matter how unjust and oppressing he could be. I agree with Harris, as the laws affirm self-determination and self-liberty for people, however, those rights were not granted equally. The Whites benefited from them in every way, leaving the Blacks unprotected. Even after the emergence of the US constitution, rights were not granted equally. I believe that it is quite hypocritical from the US to possess a constitution, which is addressed to everyone, but not applied to everyone.
Progressivism is a movement focused on rectifying politics, modernization, and justice for the American people. In the Progressive Era, the citizens had many important economic issues to address, such as exploitation of women and children, the advancement of scientific research, and the consequences of big businesses taking over the work force. On the legislative side, many issues such as corrupt political leaders, Americans being given the freedom the Constitution allows, as well as citizens voices being heard as far as political issues are concerned. The Progressives were motivated by corruption at the hands of the government, inequality for American citizens, and greed by larger companies. The Progressive Era accomplished many advancements such as growth on an economic and city population level, improvement in the industrial production, as well as development of the consumer marketplace.
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.
Consensus also leads to fair representation, allowing all people to participate in decisions and ensuring that no group is constantly relegated to the minority. While Wiredu does paint an attractive picture I feel there are multiple points of which he does not provide adequate explanation. Perhaps the point which draws the most criticism is Wiredu’s (1995) controversial claim that “ultimately the interests of all members of society are the same, although their immediate perceptions of those interests may be different”. Eze (1997) in his critique of Wiredu asks how do the interests of some 95 percent of Americans who share only as much wealth as another one percent of the same population coincide? Can all differences between people really be resolved through knowledge, understanding and discussion?
However, just imagine agreeing with one person without having an option. Unless the whole population in the country agrees with that one person, there are still people who disagree. It would be a different story if all of society agrees with the leader. There is a very slim chance of that ever happening. That is why the citizens having more say sounds way better than having one person control