Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.
The first issue was that of what people would be involved in the government. This problem was centered on the idea of different classes of people that were in the nation. By limiting the types of people in the government however, it would limit the types of personalities that would play a role in the government. Some argued that the private men, the working class individuals who represented the majority, had no business being involved in politics and government. Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men.
An imperial system was against everything Romans stood for. Instead of freedom and democracy, it oppresses and exerts arbitrary force.1 Before the fall of the Republic, the power rested with the people. The state was ruled by magistrates who themselves were elected by the people. So, although the rich dominated the political sphere, at the root of it all, those who held the real power were actually elected by the people. The magistrates made laws and decided the most important decisions affecting the state.
They had had enough of political quarrels and instability. But to stay in power, Napoleon needed to do something about France’s problems. There is no doubt that he did, but that doesn’t mean that along the way, he didn’t help himself as well. Before the revolution, peasants had to pay taxes to the nobles and the church. This was not fair as the peasants didn’t have enough money as it was, before they had to pay money to the Church and Nobles.
Their class – as the middle sect, fought for parliament because the hierarchical structure was something they regarded as unimportant to their success and in some ways, even hindered their development and progress. Clarendon argues that Leeds, Halifax and
Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
If the state found someone incapable of military duty for some reason, or they did not take well to the military lifestyle then they would be stripped of citizenship and labeled a “trembler” for their fear of battle. This was a great shame to be guilty of and therefore the Spartan culture had lots of pressure for young men to grow up enjoying the thrill of battle. This had a much greater impact than ensuring job satisfaction to all the Spartiates. The Spartans knew that the key to a successful army, especially an army that operated in a style such as the phalanx needed to have strong men who would not give in. If any man proved to be a weak point in the wall of shields then the entire phalanx was in grave danger.
Thomas Hobbs’ philosophy was that the people were wicked and evil, so they needed to give all of their power to a ruler for the exchange of protection, this was know as the social contract. However, John Lock believed that people could learn for experience and improve themselves by making mistakes and learning from them. Lock also believed that all people are born free and equal and that people themselves should have the power to govern their own country. This philosophy quickly spread through out the colonies and created a dispute between the Britain monarchy and the American colonies because by its very own nature, republicanism was opposed to hierarchical and authoritarian institutions such as aristocracy and monarchy. In addition, what created a political dispute between America and Britain were the ideas of the ‘radical wigs’.
Rules are what society is made of, without them people would not see themselves as in a society. Rules insure that people who think they are above or exempt from society are contained, such as if you murder someone you are arrested, for the good of society. Of course not all these rules work and are not upheld properly but overall they are made to keep society together and for the good of the people. The people who inforce them may be unjust and cruel but without societies rules these are the people that might be running things since they seek to dominate people. This is why we would have anarchy without societies rules and why they are in place.
Both regions had several things in common, such as unjust rulers and desire of equality and freedom for peasants and nobles, although they had major differences on how they went about winning their revolution and what they were fighting for. The British colonies in America and the French suffered from unjust rule from the monarchy and aristocrats, who had more power and wealth. The Kings, Parliament, and Nobles were superior, had all the authority, made all the rules, passed all the laws, yet the citizens of France the Britain’s colonies were the ones who had to pay the price. The government did not bother to listen to the voices and demands of the common people, being unfairly taxed so the elite can have their own personal gains, creating the path for a strong sense of patriotism and pride in one’s nation, forging people to stand up for the rights they deserve, commencing the beginning of the Revolutions. Equality and freedom were the motivations of the war.