Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
Sandel suggest discarding the whole culture of hiding moral convictions from debate because it is unnatural. This suggestion seems to be heading along the right path to creating a more reflective democracy. He is essentially asking for a “free market place of ideas” to ensue and that people will be swayed by truth and conviction. Sandel is very invested in discussing the purpose, the core of things and this leading us to a better form of democratic debate. It is a very ideal way of government and would require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the citizens and it would most likely cause slow progress.
Lao-tzu was a firm believer that playing a bigger role will ruin the balance of tranquility. He believes that the way to show your true power is not show it at all unless used as a last remedy. A successful government alsoknows when to not use force.Lao-tzu teaches
William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea. Sumner’s writing was a strong example that the government structure should not do anything but create peace. This concept is further backing the idea that government should be remain as small as possible. He writes in Social Classes Owe to Each Other that each social class owes eachother nothing, and that each citizen is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and an equal opportunity in doing so, but not everyone has the right to nor are they entitled to the right. This reflects the laissez-faire argument of what little the government interaction with social classes would
According to Libertarians the government should never be able to tell anyone what to buy ( such as insurance), or what to pay. It should be one’s personal responsibility to take care of themselves financially. Libertarianism is not a new idea. Its morals and values started when this country was founded and are still true today. While many people in support of big government may slander Libertarians as anarchists, the truth is that they believe government has it’s place.
In this paper I will attempt to give an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideas and contributions each of the men made to their respective schools, and hopefully give my personal reasoning why one is more true than the other. Rationalism was developed by several important philosophers all around the 17th century. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz are all given credit for developing rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that reason and logic are the basis of knowledge. It says that knowledge is innate, and that it cannot come from sources such as the senses.
He also desired equality and justice for all regardless of their religious or political affiliation but not through a government that had complete control over its people like an aristocrat would over “commoners.” Equality and protection of all citizens should be granted and protected by the government of America; a government elected by the people and for the people. Both men desired the government to have the common interest of the people at its cores, but had different ways of achieving it. Unlike Washington, who favored a centralized government, Jefferson opposed it. This created a conflict because Jefferson feared that the ideology of republicanism was threatened with a centralized and powerful government proposed by Washington as well as the supposed monarchical tendencies of Hamilton and the
Separation of powers sets the US apart from other nations. Clearly, without them, it is possible for a country to fall into a dictatorship or some other form of totalitarianism. Luckily, the founding father foresaw the possibility of that dark road. Without such insightful leaders, it is unclear where the US would be headed today. Truly, division and the spread of power has a major influence on the decisions and laws made in the
* The government should be structures so that the three constitutional branches and their relationships keep each other in their proper places * Members of each branch should have as little input as possible in the appointment of members of the others * The people appoint officers * In the judiciary branch, there are specific qualification to be selected * Judges hold permanent tenure----would destroy any need for the authority appointing them * If the executive or the judicial were not independent of the legislature, their dependence in every other area would be insignificant (BRANCHES MUST BE INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHER BRANCHES) * Solution to prevent the gradual accumulation of power in 1 branch is to give the administration the necessary constitutional tools and personal motives to resist encroachment Government Reflects Human Nature * Government is the greatest reflections of human nature (live and learn from mistakes) * If government is to be administered by men over men, you must 1st enable government to control the governed * Government control depends on the people---so extra precautions are always necessary * There must be checks and balances in all
Locke believes that civil disobedience is justifiable if the government’s legitimate authority is questioned by the people, since he believes that we all consent to leaving the state of nature through a social contract with the Leviathan, a ruler or ruling body, which will ensure safety to all its subjects/citizens. This means that the people need to back the legitimacy of a government’s authority over them. If this doesn’t happen then civil disobedience is acceptable in a lockean ideology. This means that any form of civil disobedience is an show of lack of