Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best.” He goes on to say that “government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” Basically, Paine is stating to the common people that they have the opportunity to form their own representation of government and do it in a way that truly represents their wants and needs. He is also knocking the form of government the British have and elaborating on why they need to separate due to their own needs for America. Paine would later go into more depth of the style of government Great Britain rules with. The second and perhaps most important key point Paine was trying to explain was the Monarchy rule
Separation of church and state is a paraphrasing of Thomas Jefferson’s words when asked about the function and intent of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, which are both in the first amendment. The establishment clause states that the government may not establish an official religion, and free exercise clause, which says that the government may not interfere with religious practices, (116). This is confusing because of contradicting ideas: “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and “in God we trust,” written on money. The idea of separation of church and state is important because this was a key idea that America was born on: that no religion is forced, and religion shall be practiced freely. 8.
Cameron Fairchild 2-17-12 There are two ways that the ideas of Enlightenment that would affect an Absolute society. The first way is the idea of consent from the people to make or enact laws. “… I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors, possessing them more (as ancestral customs): such things I would be sorry should be accounted for grievances.” That shows that absolute rulers did not take the opinion of others into consideration when making decisions. “... No one can be put out of this condition and be subjected to the power of another without his own consent.” The Enlightenment way of thinking states that a man has the right to decide if he may be subjected to a law or not but that contradicts what the absolute rulers are saying and believing. This would impact the absolute society by showing the people that they have the right to have a say in the law making and taxation.
One way of doing so was to classify and systematize knowledge; another way was to search for natural laws that were thought to underlie human affairs and to devise scientific techniques of government and social regulation. John Locke argued that governments were created to protect the people; he emphasized the importance of individual rights. Jean Jacques Rousseau asserted that the will of the people was sacred; he believed that people would act collectively on the basis of their shared historical experience. Not all Enlightenment thinkers were radicals or atheists. Many, like Voltaire, believed that monarchs could be agents of change.
So what was so revolutionary about it? When the revolutionaries drew up the Declaration, they aimed to throw down the institutions surrounding hereditary monarchy and establish new ones based on the principles of the Enlightenment. Its advocates committed themselves to "reason" and "liberty." This was nowhere to be seen in the world (with exceptions of Britain and U.S). Knowledge, its followers believed, could only come from the careful study of actual conditions and the application of an individual's reason, not from religious inspiration or traditional beliefs.
4 Pg. 1) It is clear the writers of the constitution used views on natural law when they put in, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The makers of the constitution wrote this because they believed the people of the colonies were not being treated fairly by British government and they were not happy. They believed this gave the citizens of the colony every right to overthrow the government based on natural law when they said, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
Through the Awakening, the Colonists realized that religious power resided in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the Church, or any other authority. The Enlightenment, cultural movement of intellectuals had the purpose to reform society using reason. It challenged the role of religion and divine right and put an emphasis upon liberty, democracy and republicanism in the political life. So, John Locke, one of the prominent E. thinkers argued that the people had every right to rebel against government if it violated their natural rights. All in all, these two major movements produced a new understanding of society's relationships--first with God, and then with government.
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty. Montesquieu was a political philosopher of France and regarded as the chief architect of the principles of Separation of powers. He argued that ‘all would be lost if the same man or the same ruling body… were to exercise these three powers’. Montesquieu based his ideas of the British Constitution in the 18th Century, as he saw it. His ideas were, however, idealized and not entirely accurate, since he did not appear to understand the exact roles of the various participants in the British constitutional set up.