They are limited only by ability and their notion of pity, which inspires them to act in their own self-interest while doing as little harm to others as possible. While not subjugated to arbitrary rule in this state, men are also isolated. And as we see from mankind’s tendency to have families, form communities, and live in society, we would be unable to maintain this form of freedom. But even if we could, there are several reasons why the absolute liberty of the state of nature is undesirable. First off, there is no uniform standard for how each person should pity another.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Although this condition... ... middle of paper ... ...ld be structured. However, if the idea that the existence of a science of man can be questioned or is false—where does that leave the theories that were constructed upon it. Without the "science of man", all the theories who use it has their basis are in turn questioned and can't be viably supported or be deemed valid reasons for constructing the very government we live by. Perhaps 'man' as a whole really can't be concluded into a theory. Maybe the individualism of humans is simply too unique to derive a only one conclusion.
There is no guaranteed safety for anyone. Although some may be physically or mentally stronger than others, all are capable of murdering one another; humans are created as equals. There is no point in making agreements with neighbors because not only are people`s words subjective to their current emotional state but it is not in anyone’s best interest to keep the accords or remain honest (84). He discusses the Right of Nature, which is essentially the right to do whatever one deems as an acceptable act committed in order to survive (79). The problem is that virtually anything can be labeled as fundamental for one 's protection.
Both philosophers were supporters of individual equality and freedoms. The two contrast in that Hobbes theorizes a contract exists between the sovereign and the people, once you agree to the sovereign, he cannot be overthrown and you are at his mercy. He also feels that social order begins with a state of nature. However, Locke feels the government is conditional and can be overthrown if the people are not represented correctly. He argued that without the arrangement of a successful government human being’s would live in the “state of nature.” Locke and Hobbes also differ because Hobbes feels that the sovereign should be all-powerful and individuals should not rebel against the sovereign.
De Tocqueville wrote sensible arguments, save the fact that they were totally unfounded and not supported in any way. I cannot say whether it is better live under democracy or feudalism. It is possible to see that in most circumstances, a democracy is better for the people. In fact, it’s better for any person to live under a democracy, except for the aristocrat.
It states “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another." This thought springs upon a touchy subject in the world then, and even today. That subject is the aspects of human conflict. Conflict is something we all must have. Without this, we would never have the statue of liberty, and blacks’ rights, and even in that time, it was important.
Its beginnings were much humbler, and they started with the Articles of Confederation. It is somewhat strange that the American people know so little of the fundamental nature of their system of government. Their acquaintance with it extends only to its outward form and rarely includes a knowledge of the political philosophy upon which it rests. The sources of information upon which the average man relies do not furnish the data for a correct understanding of the Constitution. (Smith, Allen, 1965: 30) What I propose to show is that the Constitution of the United States is not necessarily the best form of government for the United States, but that a reworking of the Articles of Confederation would have been sufficient.
In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and abiding by a written constitution. (Bond & Smith, p 55-59). Factions will arise based on people’s beliefs, opinions, and interests. Madison said, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” (Madison, 1787) Since liberty is the fuel of factions, as well as the foundation of the nation, the removal of it would destroy democracy.
On the surface it may seem a very noble idea to pursue but it can also impl... ... middle of paper ... ...ideal , but it is the right form of government for people who have not reached a certain level of development. Locke believes that absolute monarchy is unfit for civil society because property is not safe under it and can be taken at the monarch’s whim. It is strange how Mill only talks in terms of two extreme forms of government representative and despotism , and does not tells a way from moving from despotism to government. However though his model of government is not bereft with defects it does provide some extremely fine framework and is more forward looking than Locke’s model in which the government doesnot aspires any intellectual or political thought but only maintains the status quo. In conlclusion, Mill’s notions of the government’s paternal role is praiseworthy but if looked at more closely it can create a lot of problems which Mill maybe overlooked.