Benjamin Constant's Idea of Liberty and C. S. Forester's
Hornblower and the “Hotspur”
A 19th Century ship of the ship of the Royal Navy shows the differing ideas of liberty that Constant explains is his essay. However, the extremely ridged form of government on board ship, if it can even be called a government, it will allow us to examine the ideas from a very different viewpoint. There are captains who have great power to make decisions about their ship but are yet constrained in there choices by rules of the Navy, honor, and tradition. There are mid ranking sailors that have a foot in both worlds. There are your every day seamen that have both little control and few decisions to make. C. S. Forester even gives us a glimpse of early
…show more content…
However, all of the characters have some control over how these laws are used to their advantage. Within this very ridged framework the individuals have the ability to choose if they will step forward to a challenge, or ignore the chance to advance. At first glance this looks very much like Constant's second description of liberty. The laws and decisions of how the larger group, of the ship, Navy or even Great Britain behave were made far away from and with little input from each of the lower layers of individuals. With some stretch, we could see that Hornblower can suggest some changes to the Captain of the Fleet or even an Admiral. However, the examples we see of this, Hornblower suggesting missions for boat. Bush did have some suggestions of courses of actions and things like how to intemperate things like a ship on the horizon when conversing with Hornblower but they were limited and could have been dismissed without another thought. This to me seems very much like the removed or representative form of government that Constant would suggest for modern liberty. Where then is the personal freedoms that the individuals should be taking great joy in. These are more or less apparent at different ranks within the Navy. Cornwallis certainly has great personal freedoms in the decisions on how to manage an entire fleet of boats. …show more content…
It would seem that this may be what Constant attempts to warn us about in this quote on (Fuller p. 119) “The danger of modern liberty is that absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence, and in the pursuit of our particular interests, we should surrender our right to share in political power too easily.” Although Constant doesn't quite get there as he finishes describing the downfalls of being to far removed from our government. I believe the next step could be tyranny. This is the lack of any liberty. Tyranny could describe the lives the lowest ranking sailors on Hotspur. They have given up all of their input into their government and the government is now controlling their public or group lives as well as their complete personal lives as well. This is a small leap from Constant's descriptions we are given on Fuller page 119 it seems to fit the over all idea of the
Everyday we have the chance to make her own opinions and give reason to our own voice. We have the chance to live in a country that encourages freedom in society, which separate ourselves from any restrictions imposed upon by authority, actions or any political views. liberty is the power we possess to act as we please through freedom and independence. But what happens when we choose to give away our basic liberties for temporary safety? Benjamin Franklin once stated, “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those who decide to give away their personal freedoms for something that is temporary do not see the value in the long-lasting gift called freedom. In
Foner focuses, specifically, on how the definition of liberty has been molded over time. He describes how other factors played a role in the change of liberty using three interrelated themes. The first theme, as he describes it, covers the dimensions or meanings of freedom. The dimensions include “political freedom, or the right to participate in public affairs… civil liberties, or rights that individuals can assert against authority…[and] moral or ‘Christian’ ideal of freedom,” the freedom to act morally or ethically good (Foner xvii). It also includes personal freedom or being able to make individual choices free from coercion, and “economic freedom…[which covers how] the kinds of economic relations constitute freedom for… [individual’s working lives]” (Foner xviii). All these dimensions are looked at individually as they play a role in reshaping the definition of freedom or liberty.
Henry opens his speech addressing why colonists of differing opinions should come together to fight Britain’s rule. He acknowledges both sides, knowing that he must empathize with the differing sides and then promote his plan. He considers the action or dormancy of America’s military against British rule nothing more than a “question of freedom and slavery” (Henry). By doing so, he creates and ultimatum using two antonymic words “freedom” and “slavery”, therefore creating a fear of enslavement yet also evoking a sense of hope only found in military action. Henry says that by holding back his opinions he “should consider myself [himself] as guilty of treason towards my country, ...
One of the main ones is about the government. Paine states “That government sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” (Common Sense) Then reading what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people. It was a check and balance system. It may not have started out as a great one but it was a start. However, the colonist did feel that British government was to complex. The colonist were seen as being rebels because they were standing up for what they felt was right. This is one of the big reasons the United States became
Borussia Dortmund is a German football club in the Bundesliga.It was founded by 17 soccer players for Dortmund on December 19, 1909 the country itself . It is one of the most successful German soccer clubs of all time. It is part of a large membership based sports club with over 88,000 members making it the worlds most supported club, it also has the largest average attendance in all of the world.
"The Horrors of Government Control essays." MegaEssays.com - Over 85,000 essays, essays and term papers available for instant access!!. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. .
Thomas Jefferson once stated, "When the people fear the government you have tyranny... when the government fears the people you have liberty." (http://www.chvanilla.net/frogquotes.html)
It can be depicted through the source that society will ultimately find a way of having freedom within every human heart over a period of time. Prison walls, martial laws and secrete police will not help spread the desire of freedom for all citizens. George W. Bush, the United States president from January 20, 2001 -January 20, 2009 and the author of this source believes that the world would run more effectively if there was less government participation. This type of government values individualistic efforts which promotes neo-conservative principles. Individual accountability and participation in society is not seen as a government responsibility but is rather seen as personal responsibility that must be met in order to keep the nation
In the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, the generation of our founder fathers faced internal and external problems during the fight for American freedom and the creation of the Constitution. These problems were either the result of the colonists and their fight for liberty and ideology between themselves or the British trying to evoke their power onto the colonists. Both conflicts go hand in hand with each other, but present different forms of problems. While reading the Bernstein’s “Thomas Jefferson” it was easy to see the internal conflict that the colonist would face after gaining there freedom from the British simply because they didn’t have a background in
One of my main issues with the government is they are too involved with people’s private lives. There should not be laws pronounced only because of the sole reason of there being a majority vote. We should not have to vote on a personal/private matter. The government does not allow us to rule ourselves. We are not allowed to use our conscience. They overrule us. In Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience from Part I” he states, “ It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience, but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.” This is arguably interpreted as the government thinks for us. They do not leave it to ‘the people.’ Also Thoreau states the following, "Now what are they? Men at all? Or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?" The government puts men in war who did not wish to be there. They should leave it to the men and women who volunteer. We ar...
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
Although Washington wears no divine crown, he maintains an unquestionable authority. He is the general of the ship, and the general of America. The image portrays a wide array of characters. An androgynous individual sits beside an Indian, a black man, and a men of the frontier. They all row under an American flag that had yet to be created. Adorned in their hodgepodge of makeshift uniforms, the boat is not just carrying the crew to victory, but toward liberty. This is the grand idea of the American Revolution. To most Americans, the Revolution wasn’t a Civil War, but a war against tyrants. Romancing the war in this way is tempting. Instead of a civil war with lukewarm popularity, a fight with a cruel antagonist for liberty makes for a better story. Yet, what this symbolic painting misses is that not all were sailing toward freedom. Sadly, unlike the mythical boat, the black man was actually rowing towards years of bondage; and the Indian removal from his land. Nonetheless, the painting is inspiring. It shows what America could be at its
Or rather, the citizens do not want these freedoms. The topic of individual rights is a hot issue in contemporary society but in this timeline, any basic rights - or lack thereof - are for the collective. Any outliers are to be handicapped or jailed. Any protests are stopped before they begin. The people are not allowed to know what existentialism is, let alone believe in it. The police are sent to stop threats that would ruin this controlled society and the citizens police themselves to defend the same system. They can sit around watching the same TV shows like zombies, wearing their bag of birdshot and hearing an ear-splitting noise every twenty seconds for the rest of their lives. But everyone does the same thing, so at least they can all be equal while they do it. In this radical version of equality exemplified in “Harrison Bergeron”, Harrison is freedom and the Handicapper General is the government. One shot is all it takes to neutralize him. Freedom is now dead. Then, the H-G men simply sweep it under the rug and move on with their lives. Since the competitive “dark ages,” no social progress has been made. And as much as Freedom can progress, it can be stopped with a single bullet. How will change ever happen if the people are sheeps and left at the whims of wolves who wear their
Too much government control can be frightening according to the novel Divergent by Veronica Roth. Government fears Divergents because everything and anything is possible when dealing with one. It can mean living life fearlessly or it can mean living life in complete fear of whether or not the government finds out what faction a person fits into, if any. A utopian society seems like perfection to some people, however a perfect society can also cause damage by eliminating free will. The government in Divergent, prides itself on stealing people's identity to create an identity that is satisfying to them. That is wrong on so many levels. The Dauntless faction is surrounded
The notion of liberty is one that many hold dear and during the American Revolutionary War period, many saw opportunity to speak out and test the waters of liberty. With the Declaration of Independence and the promises of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” many became convinced that this would change the world. As the war intensified, more and more Americans based their claims for liberty not just on the historical rights of Englishmen but on more abstract language of natural rights and universal freedom. This language included John Locke’s idea that natural rights had existed the establishment of government. Liberty was the foremost popular rallying cry in the age of revolution that began in British north America and spread to Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean.