Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
Small though it be, it will make many mistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there” (Democracy, Voltaire). His opinions on the pursuit of progress with abandon were that progress should be sought after but not without humanity and rationale in mind. He would not have wanted progress to be had on the sacrifice of human rights or the loss of rationality. He was somebody who “believed in progress and in the virtues of civilization, contrary to Rousseau’s belief that civilization corrupts man” (Voltaire, New World Encyclopedia).
Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” directs rulers to be practical and do basically anything to stay in power, even if it requires being evil. He would reject Plato’s opinions regarding rulers, since Plato believed that rulers must “ascend until they arrive at the good” (55) and “the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and in the State in which they are most eager, the worst” (61). Plato's views directly contrast to Machiavelli’s views on the ruler, which is that the best and most effective ruler is one that does everything possible to maintain the power in which he holds. He is only worried about the attainable future and ideals, while Plato is more focused about the enlightenment of man, and the understanding of knowledge.
Marx believed Hegel’s view was too abstract and metaphysical in nature and did not address the problems of the real world. Marx reinterpreted Hegel’s view into his own philosophy of “dialectical materialism”. Instead of simply ideas creating change, he believed it was the clash of different economic classes that caused progress and change in history. Both Hegel and Marx believed the methods of reaching the “totality” are not important because it is only the outcome that is true. In other words, ‘the end justifies the means’.
Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways. He believes that the real problem is trying to reform with those who don’t approve of the government choices but silently offer their loyalty. Thoreau sees an opposite relationship between money and freedom. The poor man has the greatest freedom to fight because he depends the least on the government
Oddly enough, with this theory, it is prohibited to tell lies or commit suicide because that is morally wrong within itself and does not support the universal good of a rational decision, but if people acted in line with their duty to the universal law of their society, the results were of no consequence (Butts & Rich, 2008, Chapter 1). Kant stated that a person should act without emotion and with a complete sense of duty to serve the morally universal law of society and that the intention is of more importance than the result – consequences of the actions do not matter (Jasper, 1962). The theory of deontology follows this thought by setting demands that humans act at all times as though their actions would be universally accepted into an overall rule for society. He believed that duty and law are always one unit and cannot be separated and that with this duty to law, we shape our world. My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete.
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
It was these democratic principles that have gotten us to the place we are today. We must not look to the judicial branch to affect the regulation of business; instead we must take on this issue in the tried and proven democratic process. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of laws and regulations, not create them, and that is exactly what the reinterpretation of the commerce clause has done. The reinterpretation has extended the power of the federal government, and the judicial system too far, allowing them to overstep their boundaries. The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market.
Ultimately, because Gandhi’s beliefs and tactics in incorporating those beliefs were based on religion and peaceful, non-violent protests, and Marx believed that violence and action would successfully end social classes in Europe, there is a very distinct difference between both men’s methods, yet they shared the same common goal: to do away with inequality. If Gandhi had to respond to Marx on his methods in transforming class based societies to classless societies, I do not think that he would agree on every one of Marx’s techniques. There are many different aspects of why. They were two totally different types of activists trying to achieve the same ultimate goal. Gandhi was a man that would “strain every nerve to make Truth and Non-violence accepted in all our national activities” (i.e.