Government Essay The Mayflower compact, and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government helped establish the principles of freedom, independence, and natural rights that were used to shape the ideas on which our founders created the Declaration of Indepence. The Mayflower compact was important because it was the idea that people had the right to determine the form of government in which they wanted to be governed (Nobles 1215). This concept was important because it was based on biblical principles that they got their rights from God, not from a king, government, or ruling elite (Nobles 1215). John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was important because it helped create civil societies in which people would give up order to receive protection and security from their government(Locke 1690). This was important because it created a peaceful living and order, but also the people still had the right to overthrow their government if they felt they were not representing the people anymore and abusing power(Locke 1690).
This compromise helped give each state equal say in the government. As John Samples said to the Cato Institute in In Defense of the Electoral College, “ … the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections… an important part of our federalist system - a system worth preserving… federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power.” (Doc C). Since this nation is founded on federalism (the sharing of power between national and state governments), it only makes sense that each individual state would want equal say in the nation’s government. Samples knew that to keep the government running smoothly, each state needed equal representation in the government, thus the Electoral College. Along with keeping balance between the states, the Electoral College also helps keep independent parties under
Rousseau contends that the purpose of the government is to unite people under general will and ensure they live in harmony. He thinks that laws should be a collective expression of a general will. All laws should be based according to the general will and should be applied to the people as a whole and not just to one particular individual. He then proposes that it will not be easy for all to sit and create laws, and thus comes up with an idea of a “lawgiver.” According to Rousseau, a lawgiver is someone who creates laws for everyone in the society based on the general will of the people. He states, a lawgiver is a wise and selfless man.
Locke was most well-known for his views on citizen’s rights and a limited government. Locke believed that all people had what he called “natural rights.” To Locke, natural rights would include a person’s life, liberty, and property not to be harmed. This ideology was the shaping of the English Whig tradition. The English Whig tradition was based on two forms of republicanism, known as classical republicanism and liberal republicanism. John Locke was a classical republican, which was the belief that there was an overall good that is best for all people and that the government should have less power among the people.
John Locke wrote that the purpose of electing legislative powers was to create laws and rules that protected the “properties of all the members of society,” a natural right of mankind (5). Enlightened thought presented by Locke outlined the formation for a new government that served the people of the nation, restoring their rights and liberties, rather than just the
John Locke believed in life, liberty, and property and Thomas Jefferson believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can already see they had both had the same view point , they both believed in democracy, the people had the right to overthrow a government if they feel like if there are abusing their rights since they are supposed to protect the people’s rights, and they both believed all men were created equal. The differences they had were that John Locke believed people had the right to happiness, believed the separation of powers through legislative and executive branches, and believed in the privacy for people’s personal affairs. While Thomas Jefferson believed people had the right for happiness, he also referred the government
Barber’s claim is sound because it agrees with the noble ideals set by our founding fathers and can be applied universally as every country naturally wishes to have a peaceful and educated society. Barber uses logic in arguing for mass public education, quoting two of the most influential founders of our democracy, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Barber knows that in a democracy, the people decide what is best for the nation, and if the nation is uneducated they will make the wrong decisions. Jefferson and Adams warn about those “tyrannies” of an uneducated society, which is why Barbers claims are truthful that education allows people to “think critically and act with deliberation”(6). To answer the question of how a society achieves equality and opportunity for its citizens, one should totally disregard William A. Henry’s callous remarks and illegitimate claims in his essay, “In Defense of Elitism.” His reasoning for selective educational opportunities tries to divide our country, which will discriminate individuals, amplify class
In the discussion on the methods of governing and administration of a state, one cannot leave out the models proposed by Confucius as well as Mencius. Both advocated that the ruler or the government has to rule by virtue and strengthen moral education among its people. Political leaders have to set moral examples for the people to follow, and to be benevolent towards their subordinates and citizens. By doing so, that would bring about social stability and population growth within the state, also creating conditions that would lead to an improvement in the welfare of the people. By fulfilling his duties to the people, a just and benevolent ruler would then be justified to rule by the Mandate of Heaven.
My chosen topic for my senior thesis is “A democratic republic is superior to socialism in all first world countries due to, the granting of the fundamental rights to citizens, facilitating political change and progress, and allowing for more innovation and motivation.” I will analyze the pros and cons of both a democratic republic and a socialistic form of government. These attributes are necessary for any first world countries that wish to thrive in freedom and peace. Especially involving a religious non-oppressed country, a citizen must be allowed the fundamental rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to peacefully protest. Whereas, in a socialistic government all citizens are given equal treatment, which
Hobbes and Rousseau agree that humans are equal by nature and must consent to submit their rights to a central authority. However, their conclusions diverge on the role and the composition of that central authority. Hobbes’s sovereign is that of one individual or a small assembly of individuals whose sole purpose is to provide security to its citizens and in return maintain the power to represent its citizens (Hobbes 227). Conversely, Rousseau believes that the sovereign is based on the concept of the general will which requires active participation by citizens as a community and binds/favors each citizen equally (Rousseau 76). Therefore Hobbes’s Leviathan and Rousseau’s general will are similar in premise by agreeing humans are motivated by self-preservation and utilize contracts to secure self-preservation, though their conclusions differ on the role/rights of the citizens and the sovereign.