Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself. Firstly he gave the Earl of Surrey his lands back, bits at a time to ensure his loyalty, while having him as a key figurehead in the north to stop rebellions, since the north largely supported Richard and Henry needed to find a way of controlling them. Also Henry didn’t get rid of all the Yorkist nobles in the council, only those who thought against him. He did this so that he wouldn’t have a full scale Yorkist rebellion on his hands, but he couldn’t have people who wanted him dead and had fought against him on his council. As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing.
Natural law is one of the most major philosophical and political influences on the Declaration of Independence. Many people interpret the natural law in extremely different ways. Thomas Hobbes believed man cannot survive in a “natural state” without rule or government. He believed it was the government’s job to tightly enforce the people or the people would turn to chaos. Locke believed the power of the government came from the people and if the people are not happy with government actions then they have every right to overthrow the government.
Furthermore, Stalin’s use of devious tactics also played a large role in securing his position in the party, as they allowed him to undermine his opponents and strengthen his position by reducing support for them. Overall, although the main reason that Stalin was able to succeed in the leadership struggle was his ability to manipulate the party machine, Stalin’s devious tactics and his alliances were also vital in securing his position as leader. Stalin’s ability to manipulate the party machine was extremely vital in securing him success in the leadership struggle, as it allowed him to eliminate Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev from the struggle. As General Secretary, Stalin was able to control who sat in Party Congress. By placing his supporters in Party congress, Stalin was able to ensure that his opponents could not gain any power or support, therefore ensuring that these opponents could be ruled out of the struggle.
We are all power hungry and action oriented. This drive for power that we have leads to seek it, yet there are limited resources. Because of this, there is a war of “every man against every man”. Because of this, Hobbes believes in Rex Lex, or “the king is law”. The government needs to keep society in order to preserve the peace, and we need a sovereign leader to be all powerful (leviathan).
So for example if the allies in the west did not promise to rebuild Germany and try to stop every country from becoming communist when they threatened to even if it through fair vote (rare as it was). It can be argued that the cold war was an avoidable one. Firstly the Russians were very aggressive in creating a buffer zone and in fact created communist states practically all over Eastern Europe and made much more than a buffer zone and Stalin was at the heart of all these communist political movements and was trying to spread his influence to even Italy and France. This worried the west very much because they thought their very freedom was being threatened but more importantly the more states that became communist the less ttade there was. The west needed trade partners in the east and they couldn’t trade with communist states.
In this essay I intend to explore the different recognised divisions or ‘faces’ of power in our society and see how they help to form an overall opinion of just how powerful power can be in our society, from ground level decisions to the very top of the chain of command at governmental level. I will first of all try to grasp what power really means to a society and on just how many levels it can operate. I will then study a number of different recognised forms of power and relate them to everyday society. I will then conclude by establishing how these examples of power help me to ‘understand power as (I) see it exercised in the world around.’ Power encompasses so much of what happens around us that it is difficult to allow any one person’s definition or one subdivision of it to tick all the mental boxes we have in our head of what power is. There is a tendency to view power as being in complete control over a certain person, activity, thought or entity but in my opinion it runs much deeper and much more subtly than this.
57). If leaders of government imposed regulations on the people, he believed this would hamper society’s growth and the people would not maintain the highest level of happiness. This demonstrates a good leader should empower the people to become more independent and to instill trust in the people to make the right choice. Machiavelli, a totalitarian thinker, believed that a leader should maintain a dictatorship rule with complete power by any means necessary without regard to the people’s expectations. He states, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (38, ver.
Even though the Jacobins were completely controlling the government after the arrest of the Girondins, they still feared that the Revolution would fail if they failed making them very unstable. They also feared spontaneous action. This led them to order arrests and trials of counter-revolutionaries and to impose government authority across the nation and to create the Committee of Public Safety, a
“Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut is a prime example of what happens when government tries to “control man” and make a, in the government’s opinion, utopian society. Throughout the progression of “Harrison Bergeron,” one can see that trying to achieve total equality by any means is not the ideal way to attain a utopian society. Although the members of the public, for the most part, went along with what was happening it was primarily do to the handicaps that they were forced to wear. In the story the handicapper general Diana Moon-Glampers, a representation of a president or authority figure, is the main enforcer behind everyone wearing handicaps. The handicaps include chains for those who are gifted athletically, masks for those who are beautiful, and earpieces for those who are intellectually above average.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.