The clause reflects compromise over an ideological question of sovereignty. We founding fathers cannot solve this fundamental problem of how centralized power should be. Rather, it is a struggle that will ensure a constant pursuit of order and
It highlights financial gain in terms of ‘profits’ for the King. Although source I does not directly reject the motives of a belief in corruption as it does not provide a royal viewpoint, it implies that the King and Cromwell were driven by greed and anger. Perhaps Source I also provides a more useful account as Aske would be expressing his perspective under the knowledge that he was soon to lose his life, although he was clearly going to accept this forceful view because of his position as the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace and representative of the opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries and the
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.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
Like mentioned above, the literati were a group of scholars who truly believed man was good-natured and if left to their own wills would prove to be trustworthy and generous on their own. The literati represented the voices of merchants and farmers whose interests had been infringed on by the state’s monopolies (You, 2010). As such, the literati debated on why the market was not equitable and why the government should not be involved in such affairs. On the other hand, you had the Legalists who believed the people were evil and so put into place harsh laws to control them. They also wanted to keep the policies to fund the armies and keep the treasuries full, even if it meant the people would go into poverty.
Obama built his base upon his own craft, but he is not a dictator that uses deceit in a harmful way. Machiavelli says that a prince cannot keep his word and by this Obama’s words are true, however the power of congress can sometimes over-ride his-Obama, take out “his”- word of power. This still leaves his word to be true with the option of agreeing or disagreeing with his words.- this last sentence does not tie into the paragraph; try moving it or adding another sentence to bring
It also stressed the political role of the independent landowner and warned against the tendency of political power to encroach upon liberty. A republic demanded a virtuous citizenry and thus a high moral code to ensure continued freedom. The founders thought that luxury, factionalism, and other vices were ever-present dangers, seeds of destruction that lurked in the souls of their fellow citizens and within themselves. (1) Additionally, a man's investment in luxuries signaled to his fellow Americans that he might support the ideas of aristocracy and monarchy instead of republicanism. Therefore republicanism called for thriftiness, simplicity and plainness in all things, be it fashion or food.
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
Comparative Analysis Confucianism and Legalism are two systems of society in which things are gone about in different ways. Confucianism is the complex system of moral, social, political, and religious teachings that aim to create a man of learning and of good manners. Legalism was a system that was set up to make model people behave and act how the dynasty wanted. Laws that were supported by Legalists were meant to support the state, the emperor, and his military. Legalists believed that if the punishment was heavy and the law against their actions were strict, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape the consequences.
The importance of honest, morally satisfying, work and respecting the property that is the result of that work is fulfilling. And, he speaks that culture is corrupted by people that allow governments to protect property rather than people. The closing statement of“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles. (Emerson p. 374)”, is Emerson’s way of explaining the importance of self worth.