Paine discusses generic topics of an ideal and properly functioning government. One of the most important aspects of Common Sense is the generic plans for starting an independent republic society. One cannot deny the impact these points caused when combined. Paine commences with his pamphlet by describing government as a necessary being that is inherently evil. He describes government in such a way that nearly, but not entirely, advocates anarchy.
Paine used Common Sense as a great tool to let the commoners and less educated to gain some insight on the role and purpose of government. Firstly, Paine makes a distinction between government and society. Paine states: “Society is everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish. Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own vices. 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.
Efficiency took the place of good. The good in politics is those actions which are efficient to bring about a goal. By discrediting the idea of good, evil was left as an organising principle for politics. Machiavelli believed that for an efficient government to be formed the ruler, in this case The Prince, should have two systems, a private spiritual system and a political system, both of which have different assumptions about morality and immorality and do not mix together to benefit political society. Machiavelli was more an antireligious reformer than a philosopher, as he tried to change the maxims that govern people’s lives.
In this paper I will analytically examine Thrasymachus’ stance and use critical thought to support his valid claims while rejecting those which lack validity within Thrasymachus’ own definition of justice. Thrasymachus opens with the fairly pessimistic claim that justice or “what is right” is the advantage of the stronger. (Plato, 18) Governments use their power solely to enact laws that benefit themselves and those whom are under their direct influence – a tyrannical government puts into place authoritarian and brutal laws, a democratic government abides by libertarian and just laws, and et cetera. Failing to follow these rules laid out by the domineering government will label you as a wrongdoer and traitor to the state. This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes.
Secondly, it makes social inequality seem fair and just, justifying social hierarchy. For example, the monarchy used the notion of “divine right”. To challenge the monarch was seen as an act of treason but also as a blasphemous rejection of God. Furthermore, religion prevents social change and maintains capitalism. Therefore, religion is a conservative force.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two social contract theorists, and natural law theorists, whose views on government were very different. Hobbes believed in the power of the ruler, and he believed that society could not function without the power of the state. Hobbes believed in an absolutist government. Hobbes argued that people were driven by two things: the desire for power and the fear of death at someone else’s hands (Sayre, 2012). He believes that it was the role of the government that would keep these instincts in line.
The reason why one has a duty to obey the government (when one does) is that such obedience maximizes society’s total utility. Hume was a Tory. The idea that legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed was popular among the Whigs. At the very beginning of his essay, Hume seems to agree with the social contract idea if it is understood as a thesis about how the very first governments arose in the distant past. But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people.
The form of government known as republicanism invoked different ideas for the respective philosopher’s Hobbes and Machiavelli. While Machiavelli praises many republican notions, Hobbes dismisses them arguing a republic government is not ideal in his aim of preserving the people through the limitation of warfare. By contrast, Machiavelli implements many republican views on liberty and greatness. Still, Machiavelli’s perception of republicanism is redefined and defers in some ways particularly in preserving the common good. After assessing both attitudes towards the republic, I believe that Hobbes government was the most suitable because it is the most effective in the preservation of human life, which is essentially the purpose of a government.
In contrast James Madison saw democracy as a defence against majoritarianism, with checks and balances on government, which would make government responsive to competing minorities and safeguards the propertied-few from the property-less masses. Which also leads to the unbalancing of society and
An Exploration of the Fundamental Differences between Conservatism and Liberalism Introduction As far back as the American Revolution there were opposing ideologies or philosophies as to how our government should operate. On the one hand you had Torries who wished to remain British Subjects. On the other you had Patriots who wanted to break with England and start their own Country as Freemen. During the drafting and ratification of our Constitution you had the Federalist and the anti-Federalist. They represented two sides of the same coin, which is betterment of American society.