Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature. Hamilton views the role of government as changeable and believed it would work better as a strong centralized government. As long man has faith in changing a government, man will abide by it. He states," not conform to the dictates of reason
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
According to Tocqueville, a lot can be done to the nation, if those individuals listen to their conscience and stop living in their own circle like a hermit. Society will not change unless those people make a move and change their way of thinking. Margaret Fuller said "when inward and outward freedom for woman as much as for man shall be acknowledged as a right, not yielded as a concession." This means that equality between men and women should be considered as something normal and moral. And here again, we see that if people listen to their conscience, and not to what society want them to believe is good, there will be some beneficial changes.
It is their job to declare void acts by other branches violating the Constitution. Second, as Alexander Hamilton has said in the Federalist Paper, the judiciary review should act as barrier between the people and the Congress. The main goal of the government is to protect the people. The Declaration of Independence also states the government is for the people. The general liberty of the people must not be in danger especially of the government power.
Examples like “Examination day” supports this because the government stays in power by having strict laws which limit citizens intelligence. The Giver supports the claim because the government limits citizens knowledge by wiping memories and limiting their emotions. “Harrison Bergeron” supports the claim because the government there controls society through strict rules which limit uniqueness so they are “average”. With all this evidence and analysis we will ask this question, do people really want a government that controls society and do the horrible things stated above or should our goal be to help citizens and have a government that doesn’t restrict
The regime in control must shield the right to life, liberty and property. When Hospers states, “libertarians support all such legislation as will protect human beings against the use of force by others, for example, laws against killing, attempted killing, maiming, beating, and All kinds of physical violence”, he shows this to be true (Velasquez 677). Basically, the government should be the force acting against negative crime committed from one person to another. If the peace is kept mutual between the citizens in the society, the government should not be active at all. The property of a citizen should be kept in safety, Hospers says, “libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misinterpretation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Velasquez 677).
Theresa May and the Conservative-led government tried to bring in legislation and executive acts, but the judiciary protected Abu Qatada and his human rights, until his human rights would have been satisfied (Jordan agreed not to torture or mistreat him). However, regarding this issue, if government are incredibly keen on getting an issue through without the judiciary being able to intervene, they are able to bring in legislation to fulfil their wishes and bypass the judiciary. Following on from that point, the judiciary can prevent the unfair treatment of citizens through judicial review. This is the process through which cases between the government and individuals are reviewed on the basis of how lawful they are. By reviewing cases of dubious outcome, they can protect the rights of the individual rather than letting the government figuratively, walk all over them.
If we begin to barter it away for bits of perceived tranquility or safety, then we erode the standard by which to measure the limits and prerogatives of government. Liberty and tranquility will become interchangeable and indistinguishable. Disagree: Liberty is not absolute in a democracy; rather, it must be tempered by decision making for the public good. The people as a whole, or their representatives, have the right to decide in favor of laws they feel protect them from danger or harm, provided these laws merely limit—but do not eliminate—individual
As a government that provides the natural freedoms of man to its citizens, it should do all it can to protect its citizens who are threatened. The natural rights of man are a code. If you break the code and abuse your fellow man, you have lost your privileges to these rights. As citizens of a government that keeps us safe, it is not our business to know what steps the government takes to protect us. We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out.
In the contract, people give up their rights and transfer their rights to the authorization or power so as to live in a justice society. We can understand that according to Hobbes, since the citizens give their right to the authorization and also accept the power, what the sovereign does is not injustice. In order to reach the dream of justice and peace society, people willingly give up their rights and make a contract that is called as Social Contract. According to Hobbes, the formula of Social Contract should be “I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner” (Hobbes, Chap.17, 227). We can understand from this quotation that there is a contract between at least two persons.