Power would be limited by internal and external constraints, for example constitutionalism which would mean that the population would know the extent of the government’s power. Liberals therefore wanted to prevent tyranny from occurring, but classical and modern liberals had differing ideas on how this could be done. Classical liberals, such as Acton, did not believe in democracy because the majority could crush individual liberty and minority rights, ... ... middle of paper ... ...wer. Then this in turn would lead to tyrannical governments such as those of; Hussein, Mugabe and Stalin. 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.
Accordingly, there is danger in having an all-powerful state because personal freedoms are lost. More so, there is power in having knowledge that others do not possess because it is a gateway for the government to control the public if scientific and technological advances are been made. As mentioned before, governments prosper when there is stability and commodification is way of the government achieving that although it does alter human behavior. On the other hand, some would argue that modern society is based on democracy and a controlled state as depicted in Brave New World is impossible to occur but there are indicators in society today that serve as a resemblance. Brave New World emphasizes that the dangers of an all-powerful state, power of knowledge, and commodification are detrimental to modern society.
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.
The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state. Federal limitations to certain amendments, known as federal mandates, have taken power away from the masses. To secure democracy and avoid further abuses of power by the judicial courts, an amendment should be made to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from putting down mandates that directly interfere with the power given to the states by law. Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes.
Federalism and Anti-Federalism both have copious amounts of people on their side. However, the idea that the Federalists have, that a strong central government is key, is thoroughly preposterous. While a few Federalists have fairly persuasive ideas, those ideas would not work once applied. One of the notions that the Federalists have is the notion of the government ruling itself. As one of the most prominent Federalists said, “…first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”1 The government, if its own self controls it, will surely become corrupt.
Hatred and resentment leads to revolutions which leaves the leader out of power. Keeping the idea of balance in government, in Machiavellian politics, to have a good government, the leader must me stingy, but effective in the things that are necessary, such as war, diplomacy, and justice. He liked the idea of a limited government, based off the rule of law rather than the rule of man. An involved government that was in everybody’s business would eventually lead to hatred. In order to keep leaders from doing the wrong things, he says to just give them good advice and to trust them to rule and defend the state as they see fit.
The various critiques of democratic theories and practices question the purpose and progress of political systems in carrying out promises for its citizens. Realists, such as Max Weber, argue that politics is exploitative because of its ability to perform both evil and good acts. Therefore, to study and endure political life is to know of the dangerous consequences it presents. Norberto Bobbio, a noted neorealist thinker, posits that democracy is represented as a struggle among groups and individuals for power and democracy. Bobbio offers the observation that politics is contradictory and paradoxical, since it often includes unavoidable broken promises.
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.
The portrait of democracy is best painted by the French writer deTocqueville who acts as a mere observer of American democracy rather than a participant. Although taking such an objective stance, he adores the democratic institution in America. Democracy in response to communism is government by the whole people of a country. The answer communism exclusively has that democracy lacks is the solution to the class struggle as identified by deTocqueville, “The division of property has lessened the distance which separated the rich from the poor; but it would seem that, the nearer they draw to each other, the greater is their mutual hatred and the more vehement the envy and the dread…” (deTocqueville 6/10).
If you do not control the power of the government they will eventually combine all their powers to form a tyranny. Publius believes that in order to encroach this ... ... middle of paper ... ... more than likely disagree with Paine as in doing away with government, as it is needed in order to form a good society. Publius would agree with Locke because they both think that you must have a government in order to form a civil society and that a government will protect you and secure your natural rights as a person. In conclusion to this, there is no such thing as a perfect government, only a great government yet even then they will still have some flaws. Necessary evils are necessary in government in order to surpass history and improve on itself.