Jeff Watson 17 February 2012 HIST 1061 TA: Kyle English Caius Gracchus: Rabble Rouser or Social Reformer? Throughout history, one of the main questions surrounding the legacies of great politicians is what their true motives were. Were they principally concerned with the common good of their constituents, or were they power hungry, bent on doing whatever they could to obtain popularity? This is the dilemma that surrounds the legacy of Caius Gracchus, a politician who served in the Roman government during the second century BCE. Considered a man of the people, Caius enacted many public works and laws aimed at benefitting the common man.
But, he also talked about how men make up the wealth and arms for the country. Benjamin Franklin’s quote speaks truths that are sometimes overlooked. First, Benjamin Franklin talked about the youth of a country and how they are the most important part for the public. This idea can be boiled down to very simple truth: it is easier to prevent something than it is to cure it. All of us should practice this in today’s world.
Danial doesn’t directly state what his argument is but as you start and end the readings you know what he talking about. He first starts in his thesis explaining about how money has a great toll on American society. After that he explains into more detail that there are consequences where you lose your citizenship. As the readings go on Danial says that America used to be based solely on its citizens and not based on money or the government. To me, his paper was organized well and his conclusion topped his paper off too.
Even though the main character of Ibsen’s novel ‘Doll house’, Torvald Helmer, and the main character of Hansberry’s novel ‘Raising in the sun’, Walter Lee Younger are from different social situation, both of them encounter similar problems with their families, their wives, and their money. Torvald Helmer is a man with bright future, who has respect of community, and Walter Lee Younger works as a driver for wealthy white people, who just dreams about the opportunity of earning money; but both men actually want the same thing, they want to flush with money their families. As both men earn money for their families, they consider themselves to be ‘heads of the family’. But such patriarchal definition does not work anymore; Walter understands it, and as a result of realizing this truth, he changes into a better man. And Torvald, on the contrary, is unable to comprehend this nude fact.
Augustus seems to rule with his wealth and influence over the people, and those in government positions. In my opinion he is more focused on keeping the Aristocracy happy, for as according to Crone in her examination of pre-industrial societies, the holders of wealth are the key to maintaining leadership and order. Michael Haukaas made an excellent statement as well saying “Himself being wealthy is not enough, as evidence by the war following the death of his father at the hands of Brutus et all”. This statement shows how Augustus also had control over the soldiers as well as the power of his wealth. Just like the podcasts mentioned, Augustus was a powerful man due to his financial stability and the fact that he had made a lot of loyal and close friends with the men of elite
He sought to create opportunities for others instead of simply giving it to them the easy way. Instead of individuals getting a more money so they can spend more how about give them chances to want to learn and earn the money they desire for themselves. If you want something in life you have to go out and get it, no one will give it to you for free. Carnegie was the term for a notion promoted by many successful businessmen that their massive wealth was a social benefit for all. Carnegie believed it was better to benefit mankind then just individual’s needs.
He explains that without government there is no justice and injustice. Locke has a less severe opinion on human nature. He believed that man needs government in order to accumulate wealth. Fundamentally both of these theories claim that man needs to be
In addition to the government taking action, the common people took action also. Ralph Chaplin stated in his song “Solidarity Forever,” that a union of men is stronger than a single man. He also states that a single man is nothing compared to his boss but a union makes him strong. Adam Smith stated in his novel The Wealth of Nations, that the only reason of production is to provide the best possible good to the consumer for the lowest price. He states that society should assist producers to the point where they only help them benefit the consumer and no more.
Unfortunately, since the ideal of a utopia doesn’t exist, there are the citizens of a nation, and then there are the citizens of that nation who are “more equal,” or have better rights and more freedoms such as suffrage and equality that the rest of the populace can only dream of. Separated by millennia of human experience, Socrates and Marin Luther King Jr. were each men who realized that their respective nations were tantalizingly close to reaching the ideal of a truly great society, but were hindered by but a few glaring disparities. These were men who accepted their government with its strengths and its flaws and were proactive enough to instigate powerful and meaningful change. They each attempted to correct the system in which they lived, wishing not to completely redirect its path but to alter its direction towards the narrow lane of righteousness and just action. As is evident in the Apology, Socrates believes that for a government to properly function and provide for the basic freedoms of
See…The great leaders that we adore and idolise in our modern industrial society are people who did, or are doing, things not for personal gain...no... but for the benefit of others. I mentioned the great Mahatma Ghandi before, he fought for the freedom of his people and through all of his criticisms and hardships he still fought for what he believed in…he fought for a cause. Now that, for me, is what truly differentiates a leader from a great leader... The cause. I have heard many a tale of people entering into politics in the hope that they will gain wealth and power and that usually is the reason for their downfall.