Scholars have, however, been divided whether this claim is compatible with the position Plato attributes to Thrasymachus in the first book of the Republic. Plato’s account there is by far the most detailed, though perhaps historically suspect, evidence for Thrasymachus’ philosophical ideas. In the first book of the Republic, Thrasymachus attacks Socrates’ position that justice is an important good. He claims that ‘injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice’ (344c). In the course of arguing for this conclusion, Thrasymachus makes three central claims about justice.
In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
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.
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.
It follows, then, that the ruled would be acting justly if they were to act in the interest of the stronger. In this defining passage, the influence of Thrasymachus’ equally ruthlessly-realist contemporary Thucydides is immediately apparent – for it is little more than a revision of the notion that “might makes right.” It is a statement of favour for what might be deemed “coercionist justice” in which one party (the ruler) freely shapes the actions of another (the polity), with little to no thought given to anything but the end result: namely, the maintenance of the aforementioned ruling party’s position of power. Thrasymachus also offers insight into why it is in the best interest of the ruled to follow rules at all: “For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it” (344c). In essence, it is little
John Locke versus Niccolo Machiavelli Despite their contradictions on “sovereignty”, John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli (two philosophers of the Renaissance era) shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is ‘how’ a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. I certainly am inspired with the Lockean way of thinking, but I am not sure how realistic such a way of thinking is when applied to our modern times. The ‘Lockean Liberalism’ is a paradox only in theory.
It was a confederation of independent states. The government couldn't enforce regulations; this led to states having ultimate authority. The Revolutionary war had a strong outcome on why the Articles failed. The Feds were too weak and the states were too strong. "It was properly called a confederation (a system of government in which states retain sovereign authority except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government) because, it’s provided under Article II."
The most obvious weakness of both the Hobbesian and Lockean justifications for obedience is that we have never explicitly consented to be ruled by a state and obey its laws. This puts the legitimacy of the state at risk. You may argue that voting implies a tacit consent to be governed, as voting is voluntary it would seem that those who vote would be accepting the authority. You could also argue that there is no need for proof of consent and that it is enough to have hypothetical consent as it may be enough that consent would be rational. This is the most likely as Hobbes justifies the state by explaining that as humans are by nature are selfish, unsocial creatures driven by two needs: survival and personal pleasure.
Judicial Activism is a concept where judges should interpret laws loosely, using their power to promote their preferred social and political goals. This includes the willingness or tendency to overturn existing precedent, inject one’s views into decisions, issue broad rulings with wide implications, and strike down laws created by elected legislatures. The Supreme Court is considered very strong in the notion of Judicial Activism, and essentially sets precedents for future cases. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is where legislators, not judges, make laws. Judges base their judicial decisions on the concept of stare decisis, which deals with the court’s obligation to honor previous judiciary decisions.
In Fareed Zakaria’s article, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, he claims that above all, a political system must uphold constitutional liberalism rather than basic democracy. His essay discusses the rise of democratically elected governments, which deprive citizens of their natural rights. Constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own power that secures them (Smith). “… A political system marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties, religion and property”(Zakaria 22). The separation of power ensures that the government’s focus is on the protection of civil liberties.