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).
Politically, conversatism consisted of the hereditary monarchy, a democracy that was rejected, and political decisions made by the monarch and his personal advisors. Liberalism favored the governments that were based on constitutions and separation of powers. It was a supporter of a republican government, or a constitutional monarchy where the ruler is elected by the people. Socially, conservatism wanted social order, much like the Three Estates System, while liberalism defended the natural rights of all people to liberty, equality, and property. The Industrial Revolution was rejected by the conservatives because it brought more power to the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, while it weakened the nobles.
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
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.
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
He is therefore considered a founding father of modern socialism and Communism. He believed that the statement, “the will of the majority is always correct” was completely wrong. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all. In his philosophy the will of the majority would hinder the will of the minority, and that the will of all was much more
As James Madison stated, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[viii] They understood that the unruly masses responsible for the Boston Tea Party could spark a revolution[ix], however the frenzied approach would not serve well as a functional government. They understood that “democratic governing is not the same as democratic discourse”[x]. Boucher was correct, absolute democracy is not practical. This is why a representative democracy, where all voices are heard, but where decisions are made rationally, reflecting the views of the general public, is a logical solution for a functional government representing the will of the people. A representative democracy is a form of democracy whose foundation is built on common sense.
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.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.
People were opposed to one person ruling their lives, enforcing and promoting laws beneficial to him and a selected few. Top in the new government’s constitution was the declaration of citizen’s rights. The constitution was a vital Revolution document which stated that the collective and individual rights of each social estate were universal. Laws were only meant to forbid actions that could hurt the society meaning that laws were to be created only for the people’s good and not for selfish reasons (Neely 2008, p. 79). However, the Terror enforced and promoted laws against equality and liberty ideals.