Order vs. Freedom in Political Systems

1977 Words4 Pages

Order vs. Freedom in Political Systems Order and freedom are both necessary and beneficial towards the citizens and society with the aim to promote harmony, yet they both contradict each other. This contradiction has existed throughout many years and it is still hard to decide which one is ideal for the society. This essay will discuss and analyze if order or freedom is more important for political systems. Many believe that order should be applied by the government; though it should be allowed to a certain limit and should not interfere in a citizen’s personal life. However others believe that full freedom should be given to individuals and that nothing should be enforced as it brings along many differences between citizens. This essay will attempt to study and answer the long awaited question; which of the two are more beneficial for the society. Order is a demand of disciplined or prescribed agreement surrounded by elements that a desirable purpose is achieved. There were many philosophers who believed that order was necessary to encourage an equal society in which one of them was Machiavelli. Machiavelli strongly believed in having order to achieve an equal society, he adopted a different view which was centred on man, and the nature of human beings along with its relationships with other individuals. Machiavelli was the first modern, political scientist who only approved on empirical based method of analysis therefore he was more concerned with the present rather than focusing on the consequences. Machiavelli focused and examined the political history and studied in depth the city states and rulers in order to propose general rules of political behaviour. Machiavelli was also greatly influenced by the Romans; “R... ... middle of paper ... ...at having order or freedom alone brings along many conflicts and disagreements within society. Therefore it is believed that neither should be fully implied, hence in order to promote a healthy society, a basic equilibrium between the two should be present. BIBLIOGRAPHY D. A. Lloyd Thomas., 1998. Locke on government. New York: Routledge. Ellenburg, S., 1968. Rousseau’s Political Philosophy. London: Cornell University Press. Plamenatz. John., 1963. Man and Society. London: Longman Quinton. A., 1967. Political Philosophy. London: Oxford Press Roger, D., Masters., 1968. The Political Philosophy of Rosseau. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Shklar, J. N., 1976. Freedom and Independence. London: Cambridge University Press W. Von Leyden.,1982. Hobbs and Locke: the politics of freedom and obligation. London: The MacMillian Press Ltd.

Show More
Related

  • Corrption of Power On All in One Flew Over the Cuckoo´s Nest

    837 Words  | 2 Pages

    Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. Essays on freedom and power. Boston: Beacon Press, 1948. Print.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.

    Read More

  • James Baldwin's Words Like Freedom, Justice, And Democracy

    643 Words  | 2 Pages

    I put this forward because social order is not a natural phenomenon; civilization and its laws are entirely man-made. Freedom, in its most undiluted form, is synonymous with chaos. This is why people willingly give up their freedoms: to offer general order, certainty and predictability in society. In other words, humans relinquish their freedoms and restict the freedoms

    Read More

  • Responsibility in Lord of The Flies

    1500 Words  | 3 Pages

    People should benefit from freedom, equality and justice. Absolute freedom is sometimes very dangerous and may destroy the basic principles of the society. A lot of people believe that freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want.

    Read More

  • Locke vs. rousseau

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his notable piece, Second Treatise of Government, Locke examines his idea on the concept and role of the Rule of Law. Before the Rule of Law was in order, Locke states there exists a State of Nature; the natural order of man before government exists. In the State of Nature, men are in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, an...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    Is public order important? Public order is not only important but is an absolute necessity for the Individuals within the society to know that all efforts are being made to ensure the safety of our citizens in order for the very structure of our nation to stand erect. Without order we are prone to experience oppression by our neighboring nations and leaving our state of independenc...

    Read More

  • Conflicting Visions of Freedom in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Government's Purpose

    905 Words  | 2 Pages

    Forward thinking John Locke described the government’s purpose in his Second Treatise on government. To this great thinker, political power is “a right of making laws…only for the public good” (Locke). This idea of organization is key to liberty. Government is made to protect the rights of a free person, not to remove or tarnish them. Thus, it is the type...

    Read More

  • Human Nature and Proper Order

    1724 Words  | 4 Pages

    The most manageable way to approach such an intricate and abstruse concept such as public order is to first establish it as a means...

    Read More

  • Should we value Positive Freedom over Negative Freedom?

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    This essay will focus on establishing an accurate definition of Negative Freedom and Positive Freedom and will also focus on establishing an accurate differentiation between Positive and Negative Freedom, only once a clear cut differentiation and definition between Positive and Negative Freedoms. The latter part of the essay will focus on establishing which type of freedom, Negative or Positive Freedoms, should be valued over the other type of freedom and will then extrapolate a deductively sound reason as to why one freedom should be valued over the other freedom.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Conflict Of Autonomy And Authority By Robert Paul Wolff

    816 Words  | 2 Pages

    The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the

    Read More

  • Why Public Order Is Necessary

    272 Words  | 1 Pages

    Today’s society is reluctant to see that there must be a balance between individual rights and public order. In this paper, there are going to be several reasons on why public order is necessary and how individual rights are needed. It will explain the many elements that allow us to live in a society that has both individual rights and public order.

    Read More

  • Individual Freedom vs. Majority Rule

    1678 Words  | 4 Pages

    In answering this final question raised, the conclusion to the essay emerges. We have seen how difficult it is to simply define liberty as a single conception, but have discovered many properties that a statement of freedom must posses. In the question between the conflicts of freedom, where two persons individual freedoms create a zero-sum game, the idea of social freedom emerges, and the idea that it is possible for there to be restrictions on an individual's freedom that are morally desirable. To best, and most simply explain in what sense we want people to be free, a balance must be found between the extent to which society may restrict an individual's freedom, and vice versa. As can be seen by observing politics throughout the ages, it is finding this balance that has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the ongoing question of freedom.

    Read More

  • Democracy: Loyalty, Security, and Liberty

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.

    Read More

More about Order vs. Freedom in Political Systems

Open Document