Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discussion on autocratic system of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discussion on autocratic system of government
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.
John Locke wrote The Second Treatise of Government in 1689 and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (Publius) wrote The Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. There are common themes shared between them despite the century that passed between their respective publication dates. One such theme is human nature and qualities individuals possess that make a difference to government. Although Locke covers a wide r...
... middle of paper ...
...sment of governance simply adds credibility to this argument by pointing out that both theories essentially outline how to progress from an autocratic state to a democratic government that will do what is best for the country. There are fundamental differences identifiable in the proposed governments within the texts and also room for debating weaknesses as neither proposal is perfect. However, the theory behind the models presented constrains the state and its citizens in a fair and effective way in order to form strong government.
Works Cited
Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay & James Madison. The Federalist Papers. New York: Cosimo, 2006.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2002.
Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions. 6th Edition. London: Longman 2003.
The very last statement in the book reads, “The Federalist, the blueprint of the American nation.” This statement alone can summarize the opinion of author Ed Millican as well as many others, but many pages before that is written, the author goes on to examine and explain the many ideas surrounding Publius, including the numerous interpretations of The Federalist, as well as the political objectives of the work as well. However, instead of merely stating the facts and then contributing his opinion, Millican breaks each part of Publius, including the founding fathers who created the pen name, their individual contributions, as well as what exactly a nation-state is. With the help of a significant amount of evidence, Milican continues to assert that Publius was entirely a nationalist and believed heavily in the Lockean ideals that people want to be a unified nation. The very first chapter comes on strong by giving examples of the many interpretations of Publius. Millican then either counters these arguments or accommodates them to his own conclusions. Afterwards, Publius’ mission in pre-Constitutional America is discussed, as well as the idea that The Federalist indeed had Nationalistic tendencies. The next section of the book contributes to perhaps the most appealing aspect of the whole book. Because the concept of the nation-state was brought up in the previous chapter, Millican elaborates on exactly what a nation-state is, as well as historical examples of the evolution of central regimes, but moreover the condition of the United States at the time The Federalist was in print. This provided an excellent introduction into what becomes the lion’s share of the book, which was Hamilton, Madison, and Jay’s contribution and actions in their respective volumes of The Federalist. This is unique because virtually every attempt at the motives of these works have only taken pieces of The Federalist and used, at most, a handful of essays of the 85 that collectively make up the collection.
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government - “life, liberty, and property” - consent of the governed (people are giving permission to the government to rule)
Trans. William Popple. N.p., c. 1686. - c Print. The.. 4) Locke, John.
Hamilton uses fears of past despotism in monarchies and encroachments in representative bodies to persuade people to see that this essential law of good behavior “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 100)
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
a law made by God, called the Law of Reason. This law gives humankind liberty,
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
John Locke, one of the leading philosophers of the European Enlightenment was very important when it came to political thought in the United States. His ideas of the reasons, nature, and limits of the government became especially important in the development of the Constitution. In one of his most famous writings of that time, Two Treatises on Government (1689), Locke established a theory where personal liberty could coexist with political power ; meaning that the people would agree to obey the government and in return, the government would have the responsibility of respecting the people’s natural rights. In other words, he laid out a social contract theory that provided the philosophy and source of a governing author...
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
In the Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke engages readers with the idea of a toleration. This was based on the premise that “neither single persons nor churches nay nor even commonwealths have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of religion” ( Locke 1689, pg. 15). According to Locke, the toleration of religion is important to upkeep civil
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.