In an absolute government, the people are not in a position to question the government on their decisions. Moreover the corruption in those governments can run a muck if not checked. In order to circumvent this Locke suggests creating separate powers to both pass and enforce the law. Locke was one of the first political philosophers to separate powers of the government, which was in direct difference from the absolute monarchies he was living under. According to John Locke the government should consist of a legislative branch and an executive branch (Locke 1681, 335-37).
It also can use democracy’s voting system to promote their interest instead of the common good. Besides, religious beliefs and moralities cannot be relied on to regulate human from doing harm. Therefore, Madison believes a republic government is better than pure democracy for the controlling mischiefs of majority faction. Another reason is since people have different faculties from the very beginning, the government should be held by people who possess more wisdom and patriotism. They will have better skill to advance the public good and run the government.
How could the founding fathers save the Union and “secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?” (Constitution) They designed the constitution to rejected the democratic Articles to embrace a constitutional form of a republic government. So that the freedom of the people would be ensured by protecting their liberty from the corruptible nature of man. Any form of “Constitutional degeneration was the technical definition of ‘corruption’...corruption was the normal direction of constitutional change” ( Banning, 174) “Pride of independence deep and dangerous hold on the hearts of many of the state politicians” ( Bennett, 112) The leadership under the Articles at the state level was more democratic. However, was heading towards oligarchy, because these men who were in power often only concern themselfs with their own state, and competing with other states to benefit their state or goals. The politicians were using their power to .
Locke stated that society could overthrow the government without returning to the state of nature because the social contract would still be in effect. All that was needed would be for the society to elect another government, by majority rule, to replace the old one. This introduces the idea that government should be accountable to the people. Locke was in favor of a limited government. The importance and autonomy of the individual in society was of very importance to Locke.
The framers of the Constitution decided that just because rights were not enumerated for the individual states in the Constitution did not mean that the federal government controlled the lives of every citizen. The debate over the Bill of Rights came down to the Federalists against the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists favored a strong central government that had power over the states. States had been known to make some small-minded decisions that may not be universally fair. The Anti-Federalists preferred a strong local government.
Factions and the Constitution The framers designed the Constitution in such a way as to lessen the influence of political parties in American government, however at the same time, the very essence to the formation of political parties, liberty, was left in the Constitution. Both Madison and Schattschneider cite that while the Constitution does not support factions, it cannot abolish them because of the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the citizens. They both go on to say that liberty is the spark, which causes political parties to develop. In Madison's Federalist 10, it is evident that he was not in favor of the formation of factions. He states, "…The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…" Madison made the point that the dangers of factions can only be limited by controlling its effects.
Finally, the government should support people’s endeavors and encourage them to secure their dreams on their own. There are many times in U.S. History that shows the components of a successful government. First, the government should preserve the rights and freedoms of its people. The Articles of Confederation was the first attempt to create a unified government; however, there were many problems in the Articles. For example, the Articles had no power to tax the states and it gave too much power to the states’ governments.
While liberals wanted to over through the government, conservatives believed that not every person should receive the same privilege, not every person is the same and therefore, not every person should be created equal. America is viewed as a liberal state. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” This was the strongest reason for the people to bear arms, so that they can be protected from tyranny in the government. People wanted their independence. Intro: The Declaration of Independence shapes our ideal vision in America by letting every individual have unalienable rights, not having to live under a tyrant, and having equality.
Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty. John Locke believed that citizens should give power to those who govern them but not absolute power.
They were based on certain principles that would make each one run effectively. The criteria of size and population mattered just as importantly as anything else that has been discussed. He would probably think that the United States was not best ran in a democratic structure due to its size and the diversity of its population. The Republican Party, contrary to Rousseau's claim, believes that the form of government is not the problem, but how that government has been ran ineffectively. They continue by stating that their philosophy has been to let government, by which its people are free, run without intervention of it's representatives.