Interestingly, Ferguson (2011, p. 75) describes Frederick the Great as a ruler opposed to the Machiavellian preference for the balancing of power and being instead a ruler in favor of preventive wars. His discussion significantly points to two different types of realism introduced in the class lectures – Classical Realism and Structural Realism (Neorealism). On one hand, Nicolo Machivelli is among thinkers recognized as major writers and contributors to the school of classical realism. Central to the classical realist school are Machivelli’s key concepts of state national interest and political power; he emphasizes that a good politician must take decisions that are merely in the national interest of his state, and at the same time ensure his state’s security and survival. According to Machivelli, a good politician is thus a ruler in search of power and in favor of preventive wars.
When a society develops, it will become necessary for a government to compensate for the eventual defect of moral virtue in individuals. However, as this is what is necessary for government to supply, that is the extent the government should be involved according to Paine. The freedom and security of a society is the aim of a government, aims which should not be overstepped. This concept of limiting government to its intended purpose is seen most clearly in the libertarian movement in modern times. Libertarianism is still keenly influenced by Paine’s anti-Federalists sentiments within this paper simply applied to modern issues.
The nation would be more capable of deciding what was best for the other underdeveloped countries in the surrounding region. The diplomacy was based upon the American belief that American ideals were the way of the future for the world; what was good for the US must as well be good for the countries of Latin America. The Hispanic newspaper Regeneración of April 13, 1912, quoted Robert M. La Follette's criticism of the diplomacy. He regarded the diplomacy as an outpost, intervening the nations in Central and South America by imposing the US's method and supervision. The diplomacy often resorted to military power as a solution to the internal conflicts within the region.
Another approach to war is pacifism .... The just war theory was first developed by the philosophers Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It is seen as an ethical reflection to war rather than a set doctrine. The theory simply states that some wars can be justified while others cannot. The main aim of the just war theory is to reduce the amount of wars that could occur and to restore peace.
After the First World War, writers, known as idealists’ theorists, were trying to understand the cause of war and its existence in international politics. According to realists, the ideologies of idealists were flawed because they ignored the role that power has in international politics, they overestimated the rationality of Human beings, had an assumption that nation states shared a common interest, and they thought that humankind could put an end to war (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). The outbreak of the Second World War emphasized the above flaws of idealists, which resulted in idealism being replaced with realism. Realist writers then emphasized the power dynamics of states and the competitive nature which they hold in the international
Clausewitz was proposing that if states perceive war as something that is a necessary step so that they can promote their own interests and power, well then they will use it as a rational political tool. Kenneth Waltz and other modern realists have further built on Clausewitz idea of what causes wars and have also furthered and added to the idea. In Kenneth Waltz’s writing in “Man, the State and War”, he sets out three interconnected images of what causes wars. The first one, which keeps in line with a classical realist thought, is war has its origins in flawed human nature. This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39).
Early Enlightenment thinker John Locke presented to the society documents which championed inalienable rights including life, liberty, and property. Liberty in specific becomes a most crucial topic in the debate deciding what conditions the state should prohibit speech offensive to some groups. Much later, John Stuart Mill built upon and constructed reformed ideas that contrasted the early enlightenment and would then be known as the Mature Enlightenment. In his works now classified as neoclassical utilitarianism- he was an avid follower of Jeremy Bentham, the father of Classical Utilitarianism- Mill also presents invaluable perspectives which can be used to discuss the debate While Locke’s philosophy would justify that speech can be banned
In some ways, Holmes’s approach resembles Edmund Burke’s political philosophy. Burke opposed the French Revolution because it embodied radical, abrupt, violent change. Instead he favored incremental change with due regard for tradition and social and political institutions. The government of human beings, he argued, is a matter not of applying cold rules and principles, but of attending to warm relationships and attachments to produce the strongest and best unified community. Change, Burke thought, should be
Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it? Would reducing the political actors be a democratization practice after all? We can see where the argument of not desirability enters along with non-feasibility. Last but not least as Archibugi (1998) reasons in the book ‘Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies In Cosmopolitan Democracy’ “there is no actual guarantee that the greater coordination in world politics will be informed by the values of
It further lays emphasis on state preferences rather than national power as primary determinant of state activities. There are certain events in history that purely served realist paradigm’s fundamental postulates. One main event is the Iraq war 2003. . Thucydides famous statement-the iron law of realism ‘the strong do what they have to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’ can be a satisfying rationalization for the war in Iraq. (Strong hegemonic power-the USA did what she had to do and the weak-Iraq accepted what she had to accept.