Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Representative democracy vs direct
Of liberty and necessity
Of liberty and necessity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Representative democracy vs direct
The Right of Autonomy
Political philosophy is the philosophy of the state. A state is a group of people who have supreme authority within a given territory or over a certain population, according to Wolf. Authority then, is the right to command and the right to be obeyed which is different from power. Power in Wolff's terms, is the “ability to compel compliance.” Moral autonomy is “a submission to laws which one has made for oneself.” Wolf believes that there is a problem between authority and autonomy. Autonomy overrides the importance of authority. He also thinks that classical democracy fails to be a solution to this problem.
An autonomous person is not subject to the will of another. This is thought to be the primary obligation of man. In political philosophy, autonomy is a refusal to be ruled, and authority of the state is the right to rule, there is a conflict. If a man fulfills his obligation to autonomy, then he will go against the claim by the state to have authority over him. Wolf states, “He will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws.” This is the major conflict with political authority. Some philosophers believe that a solution to this problem is the concept of democracy. This argument says that if men rule themselves then they would be both the law givers and followers, combining autonomy with authority. “His obligation to submit to the laws stems not from the divine right of the monarch, nor from the hereditary authority of a noble class, but from the fact that he himself is the source of the laws which govern him.”
Wolf doesn't think that it fully solves the problem between authority and autonomy. A unanimous direct democracy is the closest to resolving the conflict, yet in only exists in theory. Representative democracy seems to solve the problems of unanimous direct democracy, but it too, has its problems. Its problems lie in the fact that it is incredibly difficult for everyone to be truly represented. If one is not, then their autonomy is sacrificed. Another possible democratic solution is majoritarian democracy. The problem with this comes with those people who are in the minority. The minority voice is limiting their autonomy because they are obeying something that they do not will. Here
Wolf again shows democracy fails to solve the problem between authority and
seems they decided that Equality must be burned at the stake for all the laws he has
not want to get on the wrong side of the law, so he keeps to his
his own life how he wishes, even if it will damage health or lead to
...should either live the life of those that they rule, as an equal, or as a superior allow the necessary input of those whom they rule, to decide the best course of action, as is done in a democracy.
groups, rights have provided a sense of power as a direct result of their nature. Nielsen explains,
He claims that the authority has a right to rule and it means that people need to obey the laws. He links the “right to rule” and “obey the law”. It is not necessarily true that the“right to rule” and “obey the law” is linked. If we look at the relationship between parents and children, parents have natural authority over their children. The parents may command children to go to school. Although the children were told to go to school, they may not obey the parents’ command to go to school. Just because the parents have a right to rule over their children, it does not mean that they are taking away children’s autonomy. While Wolff suggests that the authority’s “right to rule” is followed by individual’s “obey the law”, he does not clarify the case when some people have natural or professional
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
...king some of societies laws is both a right and responsibility. Which in most cases leads to a positive result in society.
... the existence of the absolute authority of the sovereign there is the threat of returning to the State of Nature because there is nobody to punish anyone who breaks the social contract. Furthermore, the people have consented to the existence of the sovereign with absolute authority and they must accept that whatever the sovereign decides to do is an action that they have consented to through the social contract.
Marijuana has been used for recreational and spiritual uses since around 3000 B.C. It has held ties as a crop for industrial use through hemp fabric, one of the most efficient and cheapest fabrics available today. It has been the focal point of many religions, and it may have even been seen as a religious sacrament to early Jews and Christians (Delorde). In today's society it is still used by religions as a focal point, one of which being the christian based religion of Rasta. It has had as colorful of a history for use as a fiber as it has for recreational use. When Jamestown was founded in 1619 it was mandatory for farmers to grow Indonesian hemp. At some points in Americas early history you could even pay your taxes in hemp because of its value. Marijuana was made illegal, in 1937, after many years of fallacies and propaganda were spread about the apparent "dangers" of this drug smoked by blacks and Mexicans. When the United States Government attempted to create a prohibition of alcohol, they failed. Crime spiked along with the sales of the now "illegal" substance. What were the justifications of prohibition? What were the benefits? The prohibition of marijuana is currently facing the same problems the prohibition of alcohol faced. What is the solution? The legalization of marijuana would greatly lower unnecessary crime, keep tax money from going into unnecessary government organizations and ensure freedoms given in the Bill of Rights.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
And most importantly, the sovereign obeys no one else. Austin, however, deems that under this system there are differences between unconstitutional and illegal acts. So in short, if the sovereign were to disregard this principle, he himself would be committing unconstitutional acts.
A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone comprises an essential part of the man.
Freedom – it is one of the most essential, ever-present, and controversial themes in both literature, and throughout the world. Every day we exercise our freedoms without giving a thought as to how lucky we are to have the freedoms that we do. So what is freedom really? Equality, rights, democracy . . . these are all ideas that come to mind. But what are the essential principles of true freedom? True freedom is constituted by safety, the ability to freely express oneself, and the right to live without oppression from government.
The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are apart of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose (Privacy Concerns 1). “Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right…” (Privacy concerns 2). In 1998, the Human Rights Act, the act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals have, came into force; it incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 which protects the right to private and family life. Was the first time there was a generalized right to privacy recognized by law in this country.