This is probably what Auden and Vonnegut want to warn about by mocking the political system that existed now. The democracy system of the United States is sometimes depriving its citizens of individuality. If it continue to strive toward equality the society, much like that described in "The Unknown Citizen" and "Harrison Bergeron" will prevail and this could lead to the deformity of humanness. Bibliography: Works Cited Auden, W.H. "The Unknown Citizen."
In asserting that citizens must surrender to the general will, Rousseau places far too much emphasis on the will of the political community. This emphasis on the will of the whole comes at the detriment of minority group interests. Moreover, the possibility that forcing citizens to be free actually promotes freedom is undermined by the concept’s propensity for oppression. Though forcing citizens to be free can be a means of maintaining order in a political community, it also entails significant dangerous implications.
Many would argue that it is an act against the privacy of the people a... ... middle of paper ... ...ernment parallels Brave New World by posing a danger being powerful, having power through knowledge, and emphasizing commodification. By comparing the World State in Brave New World and our modern society, we should be concerned that the ideals of democracy are not truly reflected when we are under watch by the government, are obscured from the truth, and healthcare insurance is being forced upon us. The government is posing a threat to our role in the government by being powerful. Comparing Brave New World to our own modern society is important because it raises question of how our society could be become if we continue to let the government control our live. As citizens who are eligible to vote, we should question our political leaders, think of the direction our country can take and take the opportunity to have our voice heard by participating in elections.
The question on the constitutionality of having supreme court justices, who are appointed and not elected by the people, deciding on the constitutionality of laws and legislation is questionable. When the Marshall court handed down the Marbury v. Madison decision claiming the right to judicial review, everything changed, for better or worse. Dworkin’s writings attempt to reiterate what a democracy is and its purpose in serving the people. His statements are almost contradictory in that he says there is a need to avoid the moral reading of the constitution, for it gives too much power to the judges. Yet he also says that the originalism readings will date the constitution and make it less relevant.
Factions are products of human nature, but the purpose of government and law are to control these often insatiable desires of self-interest. Detailed within James Madison’s address to the people of New York, “The Federalist No. 10”, are the destructive and counterintuitive ideas of factions to a democracy. Agreeing with that notion, factions are detrimental to the idea of a democracy due to the separation of people and ideas; and the subsequent establishment of tiers of power and status within both political and economic systems. With the creation of factions, self-interest groups, there is the inevitable creation of both majority and minority groups.
Politics perpetuate violence, and politicians are often in positions where they have the ability to direct others to perform violent acts. Weber says, “Should it really matter so little for the ethical demands on politics operates with very special means, namely, power back by violence?”(Weber 2). Given the larger scope of responsibility, politicians should be able to handle more morally difficult situations. Political theorist Michael Walzer states a possible scenario presented to politicians, “[They asked] whether or not a man can ever face, or ever has to face, a moral dilemma, a situation where he must choose between two courses of action both of which it would be wrong for him to undertake”(Walzer 160). In a scenario where any possible course of action would be morally wrong, a politician would need to be virtuous enough to make the right decision.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis.
Behind each critique is a philosopher; one who asserts their views on how society should function. Two great minds in particular voiced conviction against the creation of democracy and subsequently provided solutions and alternatives to the government that they found faulty. Each presented teachings and writings which urged each complacent citizen to question their role in society and reconsider the conventions that were established under the fallacy they believed democracy to be. Although numerous philosophers criticized democracy, both Plato, through his argument to establish an Oligarchy, and Polybius, whose writings displayed a Roman constitution that split powers between three integral types of Governed, established some of most explicit alternatives to democratic rule. Above all, the Roman solution is the most relevant to the subse... ... middle of paper ... ...fficiently.
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes contends that government should highly restrict individual liberty. Readers find it difficult to determine why Hobbes thinks government should restrict so much individual liberty. On the surface, it seems that Hobbes believes that individual liberty engenders revolt against the government, threatening the stability of the government and preventing the government from protecting its people. However, a closer look shows that Hobbes does not believe that individual liberty is a threat to the government; he believes it is a threat to the very society that is free. Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society.
The Statue of Liberty exists to symbolize America¡¯s justice and liberty; although, the unjust system we abide by displays an obvious account of misrepresentation. Civil disobedience has been a recurrent issue in our society because many people oppose unjust laws and actions set upon our country. The government exists to provide good for the people by acknowledging what is in the best interest for the population. They seem to ignore the significant issues that affect us most and would rather invest their time and effort into other trivial predicaments. There is no backbone in history to support the claim that our nation governs and makes decisions through moral reasoning when that should be of the utmost importance.