Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
* Define and give an example of separation of powers and checks and balances * Separation of powers- An aspect of the Madisonian Model of government that requires each of the three branched of government to be independent of and to share power with each other so that one cannot control the others. Ex. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of govn’t all separate * Checks and balances- balances power- Important feature of the Constitution which enables each branch of government to constrain the other branched activities in order to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. * After the American Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation, who started to gain/lose political power? * the wealthy lost power and the low income/farmers
As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’. Emma Goldman saw the state through the symbols of ‘the gun and the handcuff’. The state robs life, liberty and property. Another area of coherence is seen through anti-clericalism. As anarchists see authority as unnecessary and undesirable, religion too (with the exception of some more spiritual beliefs such as millenarianism, Taoism and Buddhism) is opposed to.
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.
'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability.
Throughout my study of the individual, I have come to realise that the establishment’s desire for control, discourages individuality and has serious consequences for society. This is portrayed in Jonathan Demme’s film ‘Manchurian Candidate’ (2004) and Ken Kesey’s ‘One flew over the cuckoos nest” (1969). Both texts indicate that from any context it is hard to be an individual, because of the power, control and deception of the establishment, and the consequences of personal expression. An individual is anyone who defies against the rules and regulations of the establishment, being the media, governments and organisations. In both Manchurian and Cuckoo’s the individual is immersed in a dominating
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
On the other hand, the individual is completely separate or unique from the group. The institution, in nature, is going to impact on the individual. In order to operate successfully, the institution must impose rules to maintain balance. The aspects of this issue which is highlighted in the prescribed text “Raw” by Scott Monk, includes the positive effect by the institution onto the individual, the negative effect of the institution
Kevin Kuo Prof. McCormick English 1C 12 May 2014 The Imperfect Society: Justifying Civil Disobedience What exactly justifies civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws perceived as unjust by an individual or a group of individuals. It is considered to be a form of nonviolent resistance in order to force amendments to such unjust laws. If plotted on a spectrum representing criminal levels of protest, from pacifist obedience to violent revolution, civil disobedience would land at the midpoint. Although some say that nothing justifies civil disobedience, nevertheless civil disobedience is always justified because of inalienable rights, free will, conscience, and the general will.
Irena Cosby FEDERALIST PAPER 51 In James Madison’s “Federalist Paper 51”, one of the most striking aspects of Madison’s language is that it is strongly characterized by fear—fear of the power of government, particularly a democratic government to do harm to the nation as a whole by enacting imprudent laws, fear of the tyranny of the majority, and fear of the power of government and popular factions. Despite the popular image of the Founding Fathers as unapologetic democrats, the image that emerges from Madison’s words is that of a man who was very cautious about the power of a republican form of government to effectively keep order and protect the rights of all of America’s citizens. The government must protect the citizens from themselves, and the government must be designed to protect itself from one branch growing too powerful, in Madison’s vision. Division of powers, according to Madison, is vital to safeguard against the vices of democracy, as well as the powers of autocracy, and one arm or man becoming too powerful. Madison says that there is a paradox to government—on one hand, it should be of the people, to prevent government from becoming too unrepresentative and greedy, yet government is administered by all too human people, and elected by all too human people.