Liberalism v. Fascism Shawna Sirianni Hawaii Pacific University Abstract On the surface, few political ideals could be further apart than liberalism and fascism. One is centered upon a totalitarian government that controls nearly every aspect of life, while the other seeks to edify the individual and provide equal opportunity for all. Looking deeper however, we find that the motivations for each ideal are similar, even though their means of achieving their desired outcomes are quite different. Liberals and fascists seem to have little in common. Liberalism promotes equity and opportunity for the individual while fascism is all about the greater good and support of the establishment.
Laws accepted in one state may be unnecessary in another. Some may believe this would cause too much laws and chaos throughout our nation, but even though a form of the constitution covers a wide array of problems, it doesn’t get too deep into specific details. Thankfully, this power can narrow down those laws into more specific policies needed for just that state; other states would not be affected and may have different policies of their own. In addition, a separation of powers would hold the executive branch directly accountable by the electorate. Even though some might criticize that these politicians might not make radical choices in order to prevent upsetting their supporters, that’s what democracy is about: for the people and by the people.
The Framers of the Constitution faced an inundating task of founding a new government that remedied the flaws of the Articles of Confederation and it was crucial that this new Constitution administered “equal liberty, and equal laws diffusing their influence among all orders of men”1. The greatest weakness of the Articles of Confederation lay in giving the States the ultimate power in implementing politics for its constituencies, which lead to political problems nation wide as the States only pursued policies from which they will gain benefit. Whilst this new Constitution was devised to better the Articles of Confederation and solve all problems it caused, it also inevitably caused friction between its supporters and opponents, the Federalists and the Anti Federalists respectively. The greatest problem of creating a new Constitution was in solving how and where power rested between State and the National government and on how strong the chief executive and the national government should be in relation to the states and the people. The Federalists sought to create a Constitution that promoted a republican government in which it would strengthen the national government that could serve the purpose of and oversee national policies including defence and taxation.
Moral relativism and absolutism are extremes comparative to east and west or good vs evil. While there are areas in between, fundamentally, societies fall in one or the other. The explanation of moral fundamentalism and absolutism is not easily achieved. However a brief explanative on each should make it self evident as to where American society lies. Comparing these two contrasting views on morals is not as easy as one would think.
Comparing Ideologies Human Nature Although linked by the same discussion, each philosopher represented his own distinct Ideology. The debate of man’s innate logical character, is philosophy’s bloodiest battleground. The article offers a basic perception of the ideologies pertaining to renowned philosophers; (Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke) Hobbes represents the cynical, dark view of human nature. Hobbes suggests humans are born with both passions and reason; our passions cause war and conflict, and our desire for better life persuades us to seek peace. He feels that our instinctive character is to be selfish, only caring of those pertaining to us.
However, I appreciated the book’s objective as well as, a political statement regarding some realities that seemed stark and may threaten, or undermine, the economics of wellbeing, national security, as well as, the society unless they are addressed in a more effective manner. In his book, Peterson mentions Margaret Thatcher who says that it may be easy for the politicians to opt for the current gratification while they make other people pay the price for the future. However, that does not really change the reality that there is a price, since the price has a potential of being truly terrible. I do agree that the prospects of twin deficits, as mentioned by Peterson, have had some effect on the confidence, easiness, as well as on consumer and business behavior; although the effects have not yet been felt on the interest rates. The main reason for this is that the private demand for the investment capital is very weak.
Conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, some would even agree with Hobbes view that the desire for “power after power” is the primary human urge. Two we are intellectually imperfect conservatives traditionally believe that the world is simply too complicated for human reason to fully grasp this leads them to trust in tradition as it is “Tried and tested” and it also explains there argument for letting society grow organically as conservatives would prefer to trust in nature then our own rationality this contrasts with both socialism and liberalism. Finally they believe we are psychologically imperfect conservatives believe we are security seeking, we fear isolation and instability and desire the security and belonging of “knowing are place” this is used as the argument for conservatives supporting social order as they accept Hobbes theory of a “Social contract” that individuals are willing to sacrifice liberty for the cause of social order. It is clear that traditionally conservatives strongly believed in human imperfection but too what extent the different strands of conservatism support this core principle differs. Strands that believe in the Human imperfection completely are traditional conservatives, authoritarian conservatives and paternalistic
Shelley and Ridley are two authors who challenged the idea of what it means to be human, making the audience reflect on their own personal understandings of the question. In both Blade Runner and Frankenstein the flaw of humans blind ambition and greed are seen in the creators, through
Therefore, imperialism can be positive or negative, depending on where you are from and your beliefs. Imperialism can help both nations, but it will be helping the stronger nation more than it helps the weaker nation. So while it helps the stronger nation, it can hinder the lives of the people of the weaker nation. I believe that although it may have a few positive affects, imperialism is still more negative. Imperialism is still more negative.
Democracy is essentially the idea of rule by the people, for the people and of the people and therefore governing in the public interest; it would be hard to see many liberals going against the idea of democracy itself, whilst criticisms of it are also not rare. Firstly, one can see that the origins of Liberalism came from the rationalism of the Enlightenment and emergence of market capitalism leading to the events which marked liberal history; the American and French revolutions. The Americans were seeking refuge from the British Crown and the French from undemocratic institutions. Freedom was the first goal of both countries and mainly focused on freedom from oppression and arbitrary rule. The idea of freedom and pursuing democracy is especially pushed within classical liberalism and this can be seen through thinkers such as John Locke who envisioned individuals as being free and equal, having given consent to the government and therefore authority deriving from them not the people above.