A dictator would be needed, but by doing so, the state is once again liable to arbitrary rule and the people lose their freedom. By avoiding the problems of traditional governments, the general will faces a different set of problems. The state ruled by the general will is clearly an imperfect and undesirable state. A society in which dissenting thoughts are stifled and scorned is not conducive to arguments and the process of creating good legislation. But Rousseau’s idea of freedom is the right for people to rule themselves by conforming to the general will.
A democratic government would be unable to succeed because no one would look at issues from the perspective of the “common good”, but from the perspective of what benefits the individual. Generally, objectivism contradicts moral and social standards set by time, breaks down relationships, despite having positive effects, and is vividly illustrated by Ayn Rand in her book. By definition, moral is what is “considered right and good by most people: agreeing with a standard of right behavior” (Webster). Considering that definition, objectivism falls short in many ways. “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.
Whereas in antiquity, “the condition of the human race… made it impossible then for [representative government] to be introduced or es... ... middle of paper ... ...has been shown that, although democracy deals with its own engrained challenges, it is by far the most benevolent form of government on a fundamental level compared to all other viable alternatives. It aims for transparency, equality, and fairness in practice, and is theoretically the closest that we have come to a perfect system. History has shown fascism and communism to be fundamentally flawed, and susceptible to corruption, tyranny, and violent oppression. They are not capable of competing with democracy in protecting the rights of its citizenry or producing the most diverse population. Winston Churchill’s remarks can be misconstrued as a criticism of the failures of democracy, but it has been proven that, in light of the historical context of his statement, he is in fact championing democracy as the greatest political and philosophical achievement in history.
Two characteristics among a democracy include having a unique citizen that is right for the public, and allowing laws to protect everyone's fair play. Another type of government is an association under absolute control. Absolutism is the idea of governing by divine right, in which the ruler can come off as believing they are superior. This idea can be the cause of persuading rulers to be better than other parties. As stated in A History of Western ... ... middle of paper ... ...shed democracy ends due to Ralph not receiving enough respect from others, and lacking the ability in ruling efficiently.
What he doesn't consider though, is that the majority of the rulers in a democracy are qualified in ways that he doesn't actually acknowledge as legitimate. The leaders of democracies are confident and successful in the roles they play within their own specific societies. I think that Plato is mistaken by only comparing their ruling abilities to the standards in that of a tyranny. He bases most of his ideas only on a society that he knows and doesn't allow for variety or change in his thoughts. Much of his argument is repetitive and unresearched so I believe that without stronger opposition he would ultimately lose the battle in defending an aristocracy over a democracy.
A ruler cannot show any weakness, or else he will no longer be feared enough to keep him in power, and he will be overthrown. Everybody sees what a ruler seems to be, but few really know who he is. A ruler must seem determined and moral to the people, and show positive results from his leadership. The most important thing for a ruler to do is to avoid being hated or despised by the people, which could occur if a ruler took people's property. For the people, more than the form of power, their perception of power may be the most important for a ruler to maintain his position.
For human beings, the work toward the goal of a perfect society will be long and may never produce the results of the Houyhnhnms, but by using new viewpoints, a utopia might be closer than it seems. In conclusion the Houyhnhnms were almost too perfect for their own good. They stayed away from all of the things that would result in them losing focus of seeking reason, but there is no way everyone in their society would always be happy with their way of thinking. The lack of freedom is too evident in the Houyhnhnm society. Instead it was the Lilliputian people that had the closest chance at a utopia.
This form of egalitarianism requires people start at the same realms in life and compensate for what disadvantages may have been made either through socially or naturally. Walzer, however, does not agree with this system. He insists that this system is practically impossible since human cannot detach themselves from their history and membership since the choices have been made. The questions he says is not what rational individuals would choose under universalizing conditions but rather what would ... ... middle of paper ... ... we should embrace what is already upon us. To transcend social meanings of what people values will not help solving current problems.
Democracy is based on the political power. This political power is used for the betterment of the society but they can’t lead the people to achieve the goal of life. As Gandhi believed in individual self-rule based on development of one’s character and self-discipline. Where the political power comes there will be violence. One simple example is if anyone got the power then he tries to put his thoughts on others and he started to violate the others life.
Public. The Federalists were opposite of idealists; they were realists. And it is this realism that is directly responsible for the success of democracy within the United States. Democracy, the ideal, is held dear by most Americans. "What Americans would not do…for the vindication of a fundamental first principle: the right of the people to determine their own future," comments Albert R. Papa in his article "The Allure of Civics Book Democracy".