The implications of liberals believing in this statement are that they believe that rational individuals should want to sign up to a social contract to establish a sovereign government. Individuals would want to do this because life before government was endless civil war, with life being; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Life would be this way because individuals are selfish, greedy and power seeking. Therefore rational beings would enter into a social contract and sacrifice a portion of their liberty to set up a system of law; this would prevent the otherwise inevitable: property and lives being under constant threat. Seventeenth century writer John Locke said “Where there is no law there is no freedom.”
The motive behind the portrayal of an equal society is that it will eliminate hatred, envy and war. While this does prove true, the numerous side effects such as loss of identity, lack of originality, and loss of personal feelings begin to arise. The attempt to create an equal society to the extreme makes the United States government more like a dictatorship or communist system rather than a democracy. The satiric society depicted in "The Unknown Citizen" and "Harrison Bergeron" is the authors' attempt to mock a political system that tends to depersonalize its citizens and constantly strives to create equality. Auden and Vonnegut prove that the government is too controlling and as a result our individuality is lost.
Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society. Reversing the traditional maxim, which says that individual liberty empowers and enriches society but weakens government, Hobbes contends that individual liberty strengthens government but endangers society. While it seems that Hobbes is fearful of threatening the government, a close reading of Leviathan show that Hobbes is so fearful of threatening society that he believes that the government should focus exclusively on ensuring the survival of its society without regard to the quality of that survival. Therefore, he contends, the government should neutralize the threat of the individual by disarming him of his liberty and by forcing all individuals to behave in a way that protects society’s survival. We must begin by distinguishing individual liberty from the other type of liberty that Hobbes discusses, what we will call “ancient liberty.” Individual liberty is “the absence of… external impediments of motion” (Hobbes XXI 1, XXI 10).
The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were periods of questioning and searching for truth. The practice of challenging traditional institutions, including the Church, was revolutionary. Individuals began to use reason to guide their actions and opinions and realized the oppressive nature of the Catholic monarchy. Individuals strove to act in their own best interest and in the name of what was true to them. The consensus was that society would be better off with an economy that shifted away from agriculture, looked globally, and decreased monopolies and the importance of Guilds, as economic opportunities would surface for all classes of men.
Both Thoreau and Emerson argue that asserting one’s opinions is crucial to attaining a better society. Emerson decries the danger of societal conformity and challenges the reader to “speak what you think now in hard words” in order to remedy it (Emerson 367). Likewise, Thoreau speculates that if “every man make known what kind of government would command his respect” it would be “one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 381). With these remarkably similar statements, both transcendentalists appeal to the reader’s patriotism by using language evocative of the agitated and outraged colonial Americans who demanded the people’s voice be heard in government. Although published roughly a half century later, “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” mirror the sentiments of famous Revolution-era leaders such as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry.
Throughout Federalist 10, James Madison argues that we must allow people to separate into groups according to their needs and beliefs regarding the political system of our country. These factions will protect interests and create an elevated government comprised of the most knowledgeable and educated men to protect the citizenry. His arguments reflect his status as a wealthy and educated landowner that must protect himself in the face of the common people. I will argue that Madison’s argument is flawed, which he alludes to in his writing, because he neglects to acknowledge that people are self-interested and therefore, morally corrupt. This self-interest will be the downfall of Madison’s government as private interests take root and the will of the people is ignored in all places but elections.
The people (the body) must give consent to the government to have absolute rule. I believe that Thomas Hobbes’ view on how society should be run is far too ambitious and paves way for tyranny and overwhelms the individual. The idea that the citizens are the body and the government is the head is not unrealistic, in fact the portal or body politics is brilliant but he fails to account for the individual. I believe that there is no way man can exist without government. I believe that even in our natural state we assert some type of government.
Therefore, the only way to have good is for each individual to maximize their own good by doing what they think is right. The conservatives view the government with mistrust, preferring the private industry over government. Government is accountable to the electorate, whereas private industry corporations are only responsible to the shareholders. The conservative view has a built-in problem of what to do about externalities/spill over effects. In the very nature of their argument they want government to take a laissez-faire approach, allowing for negative side effects to be imposed on people.
Similarly Mar... ... middle of paper ... ...ould be by the people for the people while Marx believes in a communistic by the people for the nation. Machiavelli believes that the governed should have the right to revolt if they are not happy but they ultimately need to be made happy by the monarch. Locke would consider Machiavelli an advocator for absolutism while Marx would consider Locke an advocator for modern capitalism. The three views are quite similar and very different on their own right and are very relevant to their times of that which they try to instill philosophy of the rights for societal needs. Works Cited Locke, John.
Moreover, he tells us that Marx was profoundly worried about the way that capitalism forestalls individuals understanding of their potential maximum capacity as humans - their "species being" as he writes. It 's simply because he saw this human nature being molded by the material states of our lives, instead of as a different, conceptual power. Socialism is that situation in which humans get to be ready to investigate the full scope of their innovative forces, free of the shackles of social classes. Marxism is temporary. It is not a Theory of Everything.