The Question of Goverment
There has been demanding controversies concerning how a successful government should be maintained. Many writers and politicians have written a great deal of political propaganda, including several documents that exhibit different opinions on how an organization, such as a government, or club should uphold laws, written or unwritten. Such documents include Lao Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince.” Although each of these works contain important advice, as time progresses circumstances often change, and with that comes new and effective ways to maintain an organization, government, etc.. More importantly, the documents represent the author’s opinion, thus contradicting other works. The objective of works such as these, is to create a powerful and flawless society - a society which does not, nor ever will exist. No document created by man can prove to be effective and dependable throughout time. I believe that as societies and conditions change, the laws and procedures must also change in order to have a successful government. Failing to do so would result in devastation and anarchy. Although no present document has gained complete trust and acceptance, perhaps it is necessary to combine the practical and logical aspects and conform them to today’s society. Doing this would not create a perfect society, (as one does not exist) only perchance a stronger and more effective government. One must not seek perfection, only improvement. Rulers who have tried to do so in the past have been unsuccessful, as perfection is also a controversial subject. The ever-struggling controversies make it very difficult for people, of all cultures, to come t...
... middle of paper ...
...also a controversial subject. Religion is brought into government because it is essentially a part of the people. Furthermore, religion must not be the epitome of government, as there are certain times when war, discontent and revolution are unavoidable. Logic must be taken into consideration. No one person has the solution to the problems our “world” is facing. World War II is the perfect example for that. What Hitler saw as the “perfect world” wasn’t “perfect.” In reality his quest for a flawless “world” killed millions of undeserving people. Whether human beings can put aside their differences and find common respects and concerns is strictly up to them. The ending solution will not be found in a book, only in the individuals who choose to make emends to the conceived problems and affairs throughout the world. The solution is in us, the man-made society.
We often wonder about the importance of government. Is it necessary? Does it really benefit society? The answer is yes. Many countries have diverse forms of government such as totalitarian, monarchy, theocracy, and much more. The United States of America specifically runs a democratic type of government. A democratic government gives power to the people. Citizens over the age of eighteen are allowed to elect leaders based on their individual opinions through voting rights. The main purpose of the American government is, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers intended.
In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with the ideas of Machiavelli, then move on to Lao-Tzu’s, and finally a comparison and application into American life.
Throughout history there have been significant debates, theories and agendas set forward as to what the best form of government is. Many of those individuals and groups who have written on the topic have their critics because they offer points that are highly controversial in theory and problematic when put into practice. John Locke and Publius, which is the collective name for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, both published essays with regards to the nature of government and largely championed the notion of democracy. With Locke writing on constitutional government in England and Publius writing on and essentially establishing governmental mechanisms in the United States, both parties inspired the rise of liberalism and democratic government in the modern world (Tinder, 67). However, there are questions to be asked of them and indeed comparisons to be made. This essay will examine the arguments set forth by Publius and Locke with a view to proving that they do indeed champion strong government and arguably exclude arbitrary governmental traits that may constrain attempts to do what is best for the individual rather than the people as a whole. In effect, the constraints they put in place in their texts established a balance of power that had its limits and weaknesses but ultimately appeared to be fair.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Religion has always played a major role in the development of human society. This is the main reason why it has so often been used for unjust purposes. The concept of war is in complete opposition to what Islam and Christianity teach their followers. Still, by different means, religion was and is often brought into play to cater for the interests of powerful people.
Throughout our history there has been an ongoing argument between religion and government. Should religion play a part in the government, schools and other social compasses or should it be separated? Some believe that religion should be a part of the government while others believe that there should be a distinct separation. Some believe that religions should be able to influence the workings of the government and attempt to elect their own politicians. I believe the opposite. I believe that religion should have no influence on the way our government approves laws, elects officials or conducts their business. Throughout this essay I will give reasons and references as to why I agree with the separation of government and religion.
Since it was believed that human beings reach their highest levels of morality and virtue by participating in government, (pg. 6) it would only make sense to create a government for the people by the people. But in order to limit the government and protect the rights of citizens, the new government would have to consist of checks and balances type of system. This is the reason for the three...
There are three notable texts that depict societal law and order from three different points of view. These three texts include, Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, The Declaration of Independence, and A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While reading each of these, I noticed many similarities and differences among how these societies look alike and how the differ compared to one another. I think it is very important that we take a close look at the structure, purpose, and overall message of each of the texts to understand the deeper meaning behind what the author is trying to portray.
A major problem in our government right now is the influence that religion has over government laws in the states and the country. Government and religion must always be separate due to the fact that there are multiple religions in the United States and that religious influence favors one over the other and influences laws that can be placed over the people. A major issue of religion and state is same-sex marriage which due to religious rules mainly form Christianity, forbids the act and the influence Christianity has on the States is evident to why it is illegal in more than 50% of the states in America. Another issue is the dealing with Abortion though government rules that this is legal religions tell the people that this is wrong and illegal which are another example of religion attempting to influence government decisions. The religious influence in Government can be eliminated by disallowing the teachings of a religion to directly affect a religious preference or law, to differentiate between religious marriage and state recognized marriage, and to make sure that religious influence does not affect the choosing of government candidates.
In conclusion, governments as we know right now, falls way behind what Lao-tzu seems to believe. The reason is because it disobeys his tendency in peace, contradicts the fact that he is against people’s unfinished desires power, and opposes his disapproval in materialism.
But the good men did not remain good: they began to make money out of that which was the common property of all. And to some such development we may plausibly ascribe the origin of oligarchies, since men made wealth a thing of honour. The next change was to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy. For the struggle to get rich at all costs tended to reduce numbers, and so increased the power of the multitude, who rose up and formed democracies. And now that there has been a further increase in the size of states, one might say that it is hard to avoid having a democratic constitution”
A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the Separation of Powers’. This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group. Cooperating with one...
The projected Constitution provides the best solution: it gives great power, but does not trust anyone. But, alas, in all - and those who govern and the governed, - there is not only the angels, but also diabolical start. And the ruling authorities are obliged to take into account this factor and to treat it with the utmost seriousness; unjustified optimism about human nature, in this case borders on criminal stupidity.
Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli have spent their lives in assertion of which form of government is good and who should be ruler, what type of ...
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...