Shays Rebellion is a prime example of something that could have been prevented by a centralized government. Shay and his band of ruffians, although maybe a... ... middle of paper ... ...ur time, to unite as a nation, we must overlook our narrow minded political ideals ingrained in us by our European heritage. It is now, or never. My final point, concerns the men that are working on and creating this new government. These were the men that led us to victory over the mighty British army.
To understand the politics we have, we must look at two philosophers who have shaped the ideas and politics of this world. Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes founded a new kind of political science that opposed the classical view of politics. Both of these men believed classical philosophy and Christianity focused on reaching imagined republics; these imagines republics were unreachable. Under these imagined republics men were held to high standards, men had to be virtuous; and men could not keep all the virtues because they lived in a world where men were not all good. Machiavelli’s book The Prince redefines virtue in order to allow rulers to keep their power; he lowered the standards of politics with this action.
Hamilton defended the small thought of republicanism even though there was no sure was that it would prevail. Burr was a threat to the republic and was corrupt enough to break the small unity that America had. Even though the founding fathers were considered rich white men who only cared for their self needs, they are the ones who unified the nation when no one else would of. Their form of checks and balances among each other was key to the checks and balances in the constitution. Without these men the United States would be something different and would not have as much independence as it does now.
Their reason stems from their morality and all men are born equal, unless God says otherwise. Self-love corrupts a person’s ability to reason in Locke’s state of nature because the bias one may feel hinders his or her comprehension
Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha... ... middle of paper ... ...ideal forms of government.
Human nature is viewed as evil and something that cannot be trusted or counted on. In order to have a successful society the citizens need to be controlled by a strong sovereign government. This strong government would be the only thing able enough to control human nature and the evils it produces. If a strong central government did not exist a state of chaos would be created by the people of the land. One of the leading philosophers of the realist school was Thomas Hobbes.
In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity. Despite the fact that Hobbes and Rousseau are both concerned with self-preservation, Hobbes supports the idea of an authoritarian regime ruling men in order to prevent a state of war, and Rousseau specifies that freedom consists in men giving themselves their own laws. Years later, many of the issues of inequality and questions of the nature of men are still relevant in our societies. Hobbes and Rousseau have deeply impacted the world of philosophy with their arguments and theories. Despite their differences, both dominant intellectual figures wrote these texts with the central aim to highlight the necessary conditions for the subsistence of a society and ideal governing body and
Hobbes on the other hand doesn’t think man should be trusted with all of these freedoms, due to basic human nature. These two philosopher’s ideas diverge right from the start and form into two types of contracts, one that places trust and importance in the individual (a more modern concept) and the other in the sovereign to keep individuals in check. Overall, I think it is clear that Rousseau’s plan is more plausible as we see more elements of his ideas in modern political arrangements than Hobbes’ ideas. I feel that for a society to thrive, it must let the individual flourish thus causing other areas (such as arts) to flourish, something Hobbes’ contract simply doesn’t allow a lot of place for. Works Cited  Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.
A major controversy that can be observed is that according to Hobbes fear has complete power over independent action which may not always be the matter. . Fear is a human characteristic and in the state of nature of all against all this fear commands obedience for man pursues life, peace and security. Man only fears something from which he needs protection.¬¬ This is because the main objective of man is to continue in motion and as per the laws of nature, to preserve (which is also to be protected from something that results in the contrary) himself and seek peace. Hence, wherever there is fear of discontinued motio¬¬¬n, obedience follows.
John Locke: Account of Political Society What would the American government be like today if it was not for the mind and political theory of John Locke? Some historians and philosophers believe that without John Locke our government would only be a shadow of what it is today. Arguably, one of his most important political and philosophical works was his Two Treatises of Government. There he argues that the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. John Locke, in many eyes, can be viewed as one of the father’s of Democracy.