To what extent do anarchists agree about the nature of the future stateless society? For Anarchists the state is oppressive and represents the few who seek to oppress the many. The state is also charged with taking away our freedom through subjecting us to its laws and controls that are artificial, offending the basic principle of individual sovereignty. Furthermore the state is seen as corrupting to those in power, those who come into government may do so with good motives, but inevitably lose their idealism and become exploiters themselves. It is for these reasons that all traditions within Anarchism wish to advance human kind through the removal of the state in society.
Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function. This way no one branch has too much authority. This also increased the protection and preservation of mankind’s private property. In conclusion Locke's work he explains that the concepts of government power cannot possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. He also states that it was the joint power of every member of the society.
The pamphlet explained the advantages of and the need for immediate independence in clear, simple language. In his Common Sense, Paine states that sooner or later independence must come, because America had lost touch with the mother country. In his words, all the arguments for separation of England are based on nothing more than simple facts, plain text arguments and common sense. Government was necessary evil that could only become safe when it was representative and altered by frequent elections. The function of government in society ought to be only regulating and therefore as simple as possible.
The men of this age such as Rousseau and later on Karl Marx have challenged the out dated philosophies and with great influence introduce new political theories. A.1). In the book On The Social Contract written by Jean- Jacques –Rousseau, in 1762; Rousseau’s’ main theme that he address is the topic that total freedom is obtainable when man enters into its natural state of nature. Rousseau states that “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains” (Rousseau and Cole 1), he asserts that the freedom with which we are born is constantly repressed by modern states, in order for a society to attain full civil rights it must collaborate altogether along with the government. As for The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, in 1848; Marx’s main topic is that he attempts to illustrate the goals of communism and the theory of class relations that underline this movement, that are driven by economic systems.
APGAP Midterm Review Guide Chapter 1: Introducing Government in America * Describe the contemporary theories of democracy: * Elitism-A government and politics theory that states that societies are divided by classes and the upper-class elite rules by influencing government, regardless of a government organization created to prevent this. * Hyper-pluralism-A government and politics theory that states that groups are so strong that they weaken the government and cripple its ability to make policies. This is an extreme version of pluralism. * Pluralism-A government and politics theory that states that politics is influenced by competing groups who press for their preferred public policies through organized efforts. * Define
He is therefore considered a founding father of modern socialism and Communism. He believed that the statement, “the will of the majority is always correct” was completely wrong. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all. In his philosophy the will of the majority would hinder the will of the minority, and that the will of all was much more
In Berlin’s essay, he argues “It is one thing to say I may be coerced for my own good which I am too blind to see… with the greatest desperation.” In this specific passage from his essay, he is asking himself if he is ‘free’ or ‘truly free’ in his decision making. Berlin believed in human freedom, and defended the negative idea of freedom. He believed negative freedom was simpler and was a better way to gain personal freedom as an individual. With positive freedom comes limits to full liberty because positive freedom meant individuals worked together to reach their overall goals, which meant there were set equalities amongst everyone. The very idea of sharing meant he could not be ‘truly’ free in a sense where his personal freedom was compromised.
As James Madison stated, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[viii] They understood that the unruly masses responsible for the Boston Tea Party could spark a revolution[ix], however the frenzied approach would not serve well as a functional government. They understood that “democratic governing is not the same as democratic discourse”[x]. Boucher was correct, absolute democracy is not practical. This is why a representative democracy, where all voices are heard, but where decisions are made rationally, reflecting the views of the general public, is a logical solution for a functional government representing the will of the people. A representative democracy is a form of democracy whose foundation is built on common sense.
It also stressed the political role of the independent landowner and warned against the tendency of political power to encroach upon liberty. A republic demanded a virtuous citizenry and thus a high moral code to ensure continued freedom. The founders thought that luxury, factionalism, and other vices were ever-present dangers, seeds of destruction that lurked in the souls of their fellow citizens and within themselves. (1) Additionally, a man's investment in luxuries signaled to his fellow Americans that he might support the ideas of aristocracy and monarchy instead of republicanism. Therefore republicanism called for thriftiness, simplicity and plainness in all things, be it fashion or food.
Matthew Arnold suggested that popular culture among the new working classes would lead disruption. He feared revolution and believed a strong centralised state was needed to counter the new barbarism of the working class and their culture. Also we have Q.D. Leavis who like Arnold, believed that mass culture would lead to anarchy as the traditional power was seen to be under threat. They believed that this mass culture led to a passive audience John Fiske’s evaluation of popular culture varies from what has been stated by others who have commented on the topic including the Frankfurt School, widely known for proposing the theory of mass culture.