Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
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.
With the Fronde in the back of Louis’s mind, he was to make an effective choice of picking members for his council, which would rule his political, military, administrative, and economical affairs. Louis chose his council members from families long in royal service or from among people just beginning to work their way in the social structure. Louis liked having direct control over his subjects, not only council members, or noble classes, but even in religion. Louis believed that the state of France would be better worked not only under one king and one law, but as well under one religious system, and thus Louis would no longer tolerate the Reformed church in France. Louis then revoked the Edict of Nantes and many of the Reformed Church members either left France or converted to Catholicism.
He says that it is generally better to be frugal because lavish spending will lead to jealousy. It will also lead to higher taxes, and will make the prince unpopular. Machiavelli believes that it is important for the prince to be cruel. It is important for him to punish appropriately in order to have the respect from his citizens and his army. On the issue of admiration Machiavelli states that a prince ideally should be loved and feared, but it is more important that he be feared.
He preferred a small scale of military. However, since today the position and the possession of a good leader are always desired by many covetous men, I suppose that a smart leader today should concern war and the preparation thereof, as Machiavelli advised. Through war, he can consolidate his power, and protect his people as well as his territory. Last year, Chinese government declared to take back one of two Vietnamese famous islands, called Hoang Sa, which belonged to Vietnam for many centuries. Being afraid of inferior if a fight really happened, the Vietnam Communist Government hopelessly gave its island up to China.
For Obama to be a Machiavellian prince he does not only need power, but it depends on how it’s used through military matters. It is considerable to consider Obama a prince because he focuses on cutting government spending on the military. Also, he deals with being blamed on how a prince should keep his word. – This last sentence does not blend with the paragraph- The opposition claims that he won the presidency not by good fortune and not through his own truthful words. They say he turned the key to “weak masters” and begged to foreign directors.
Comparative Analysis Confucianism and Legalism are two systems of society in which things are gone about in different ways. Confucianism is the complex system of moral, social, political, and religious teachings that aim to create a man of learning and of good manners. Legalism was a system that was set up to make model people behave and act how the dynasty wanted. Laws that were supported by Legalists were meant to support the state, the emperor, and his military. Legalists believed that if the punishment was heavy and the law against their actions were strict, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape the consequences.
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
But do not forget that it should be both. The prince should make himself feared in such a way that it cannot get love, he escapes hatred. In fact, it is better to be loved and feared, and it cannot be loved, that his subjects so afraid of him, it is imperative that they escape the hate: the prince must remain within the certain limits (respect the private property of citizens and their wives) especially not to be hated, which would destroy his authority even faster. But, these issues
Lao Tzu and Machiavelli disagree on some other beliefs. In Article 67, Lao Tzu states that he believes in three traits of leaderships; simplicity, compassion, and patience. Machiavelli however writes a prince “…needs to appear to be merciful, faithful, humane, forthright, religious…” (49), but to actually practice all the above traits at all times would be harmful to a prince’s power. Reading both views of such a highly discussed topic tugs your own view. While I understand the views of both men, I believe that Machiavelli’s perspective is more prevalent and useful in the world today.