Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and Greek

Mr. Matthew S. Shepler
Professor Howard Krukofsky
HIST 1000—C01
28 April 2014
Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and
Greek
Even though Roman Republicanism provides more authority to the state and government,
democracy is actually an important factor because it allows the formation of state (polity) and
political equality (debate and policy making), and also establishes freedom among its citizens.
Republicanism was the principle of life among the Roman Empire, as democracy was used
among the Greeks to establish freedom and protection within their society. Republicanism and
democracy creates a modern government that we are familiar with today, which is known as
democratic-republic. The Norman invasion which occurred near 1066 A.D. was the beginning of
the English Constitution. The people who benefited from the Magna Carta was the English
Nobility. The Royal House was financed by the business class (commoners), as the highest
economic power was held by the English Nobility. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke contrasted
different theories of laws and nature: Thomas Hobbes' theories of Philosophy supported
democracy, as the theories of John Locke supported a Republican State. In fact, Hobbes focused
on felicity, human equality, competition of mankind, developing a common power and laws of
nature, rights and laws, sovereignty, and propriety, as Locke discussed labor and value, equality
of opportunities and potential, power of state and government, and establishing laws and
legislation.
Though some individuals of society may prefer a democracy because of the fact that a

Shepler, 2
democratic state ensures freedom among its citizens, Romans may believe more in the direction
of a Republic because of the fact that all Romans or Plebeians held great honor toward the
preservation his future within the Republic. In relations to Roman Republicanism, the Romans
represent one great authority rather than many representatives with less authoritative power. This
authority was made common by the sovereign and Legislator of the common wealth.
The Development of Constitutional Doctrines within Greek Democracy
Democracy originally evolved from the word and the deed. But, “Democracy,” as a word
of the English language, actually has roots that evolve from the Greek language. In fact,
according to Bernard Crick, “Democracy as a doctrine or ideal unchecked by the aristocratic
principle of experience and knowledge was, however, a fallacy” (Crick, 12): principles consisted of
Athenian's participation in policies and debate (decision making), as well as each citizen of the
polis representing each other. This particular use of democracy created a debate between
Aristotle and Plato. For example, Aristotle believed that democracy was the large gathering of
Greeks who participated together for a common well-being; Plato argued that democracy was
just a way that the lower social classes could gain power to rule with a lack of knowledge: this
debate between Aristotle and Plato was the first of four major historical uses of democracy.
In regards to political equality, Greeks placed the theory that only citizens were created
equal. In fact, the Greeks experienced freedom by uniting together as “the eleutheros, the free”
(Crick, 16). Many examples of democracy may be displayed through some of the most minor
everyday occurrences. For example, people exercising in conversation with one another while
out in the general public, as well as writers who express his thoughts through written work may
both be examples of democracy. Democracy doesn’t just grant a citizen of a polis with the right
to vote, but also provides the voter with qualitative options in which one choice may provide a
better benefit to a minority of citizens. In fact, to add support to democracy, imposing equality

Shepler, 3
upon citizens, “Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s of the inevitability of democracy but warned
against ‘the dangers of a tyranny of the majority” (Crick, 10). Democracy has also aided with the
development of educational institutions.
In the official doctrines of democracy, citizens must be loyal to the government which
provides freedom and equality. In a sense that freedom and liberty isn't exercised through the
coexistence of control and mastered; then, his liberty must be earned through a burden of
commitment. As long as the doctrines of democracy don’t support forms of terrorism among
fellow citizens, then all citizens may abide by those doctrines: loyalty and equality is demanded.
Though, most loyalty is focused toward the projected outcome of the centralized government.
Aristotle's Political Theory
In the time of Aristotle, a city was referred to as a policy, as the citizens were then
referred to as polites. During this time, the polites of the Greek polities did not provide any
support for tyrants (all exercise of authority going into one person): This Greek polity (state) was
a centralized government made up of Greek policies what did not provide support to tyrants (all
exercise of authority going into the hand of one individual) or other outside organizations that
supported opinions other than that of the Greek polity. Much like the democracy that formed
from the freedom of polites, democracy also supported the freedom of the polity as well; in
particularly, freedom from Persian emperors and Barbarians.
Aristocracies relied much on people who were not polites, or people who did not exercise
a practice in the democracy of their polity. One principle that may have determined Aristotle's
political theory was the separation of “both philosophies of government and social classes” (Crick,
15). With the separation of polites and polities came the development of different social classes
within the Greek polity: some minority groups within the polities formed against the democracy
in non-educated poverty, as higher social classes within the Greek polities gave democracy the

Shepler, 4
perception of plutocracy which is basically the rule or power of the rich and wealthy. The higher
social groups, therefore, had higher levels of “skill and wisdom (…) needed in politics” (Crick, 17).
Another key principle of distinguishing Aristotle's Political Theory from other forms of
democracy is “representative democracy.” Representative democracy occurs when the higher
social groups of the Greek polities cast political votes. Some polites didn't believe that this was
possible in a place that was as great as Athens: Athens was much larger than some of the other
smaller Greek polities and not every polite in Athens may have known enough information to
practice his belief in democracy by casting a representative vote.
From the perspective of politics, representatives of Greek democracy held the prestigious
values of the higher classes: Greek democracy was defended by the representatives and laws
therein. But, like the common society, most representatives lived a private life as well, who “take
(...) decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an
incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the
consequences have been properly debated” (Crick, 19).
The different social classes of Greek polites eventually evolved into the “prolonged wars
between Athens and Sparta” (Crick, 20). Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy was three forms
of government classification that was observed by Aristotle. Though, Aristocracy often lessened
into Oligarchy and Plutocracy which then lessened into “Democracy” (Aristocracy was most
likely more common in the representatives who upheld democracy).
Roman Republicanism
Roman Republicanism is found within the second of the four major historical uses of
democracy which made the claim that “the democratic popular element could actually give
greater power to a state” (Crick, 12). The state became a republic (compared to a democratic polity)
when all active citizens held great confidence into the future of his republic. The term “polis,”

Shepler, 5
which represented the meaning of city in Greek language, became popular in ancient roman units
of speech such as politics—when relating to the centralized government of the state. Romans
provided aid to other individuals by removing his deities so he could then be transitioned into a
citizen of Rome. An individual who lived under laws of protection made sense, as long as he
used the protection from laws to develop into a productive citizen: well-established citizens who
followed order was found in Roman paganism. Romans held a perception of theirself as being a
dedicated, and confident, social group. A Roman held the conformity of his own moral
excellence, and applied this “virtu” toward the preservation of his future state within the
republic: The preservation of life was the honor and great prosperity of all Romans. This Roman
republic, pertaining to the inheritance of a state, is an example of “Republican.”
Struggles developed which pertained to political power and citizenship. The Romans
possessed great manipulation and tactical exercises which required a great skill: “It was hard to
tell which is cause and which is effect. Though, eventually, the Roman Army developed a nation
that then progressed into an “Empire.” Because of the fact that an empire represents cultures
societies governed under another culture, the Greek and roman conclusion to each other's
conflicting histories was “mixed government,” which produced that greatest amount of political
power. A Roman Constitution was explained by Polybius as “the Senate proposing, the people
resolving, and the magistrates executing the laws” (Crick, 25).
A union was established to represent the national loyalty of the republicans which was
stamped as “SPQR” (The Senate and the Power of Rome) onto the stores of the Roman Army.
Without the Senate and the Power of Rome, the empire would be nonexistent. Ruling class
families known as the patricians formed the Senate, which reminded them that the ruling power
came from the citizens from within the Republic of Rome: citizens of Rome did not possess
enough power to govern the republic, but held rights that made it possible to devastate the
preservation of the roman republic. The most common citizens of Rome became referred to as

Shepler, 6
plebeian; plebs for short (plebeians gained control from democratic gatherings). Their
representatives, known as “tribunes,” were a part of the Senate and were allowed to have the
authority to play a political leader in a democracy (a demagogue). Consuls had the power to
command which restricted plebeians. So, power and consent within the romans occurred when a
dictator would exercise his sovereignty of the state over plebeians.
The Roman Republic established schools which taught plebeians about the history and
literature based on the freedoms and values of Rome. Individuals, who were not a citizen of
Rome, could travel into the civis as long as his deity was faithful to the preservation of the
Roman Republic. In fact, most plebeians believed that the civis of Rome was a place to seek
protection. Though, a Roman would present theirself with great after effects in the case that he
left his own ethnic group. Common laws that applied to all plebeians were endorsed by
established laws of the Roman Republic, so the “Law of the Nations” was present in the ancient
Roman Republic as well as the Western World (Europe).
English Constitutionalism
The English Constitution began in 1066 A.D. when the Norman invasion occurred. A
phenomena of Democratic idea and values, created a reaction to an event that took place which
formed values, motives, and new institutional arrangements. An upper-class that related to the
“Lord Nobility of England” was overwhelmed by Norman—which was primarily Saxon ethnic
background—conquered England. Therefore, the victory was declared by the Saxons over the
Nobles, so the “Old Nobility” forced King John to sign a “Charter of Rights “which was the first
carter of liberty—The Great Carter: “The Magna Carta.”
Mainly, the English nobility, which only consisted of forty- to forty-five families
benefited from the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta ensured that the King may not hold or
imprison a commoner for only speculation. So a trial by jury is offered to commoners to ensure

Shepler, 7
that his property cannot be seized. This was an example against the rule of government enforced
by the state—or, the King of England: limited powers of the state or government protected the
rights and liberties of commoners.
The rising business class of England (middleclass/commoners) financed the Royal
House. In 1485, the business class formed “The Counsel of Commoners.” Though, members of
Nobility of England established “The Council of Lords” —these two councils formed a
legislative body that created new laws as a legislation. So eventually, the council of commons
became “The House of Commons,” as the council of lords became “The House of Lords.” This
legislation—which was commonly known as the House of Lords, and the House of Commons—
became more commonly known as “The Parliament.” To be brief, the parliament limits the
power of government so that the King cannot commit acts against the rights of commoners.
The English nobility held the highest economic power. Though, in the “paradigm of
capitalism,” the property of a commoner was his freedom and liberty. And eventually, the
English had the idea to develop an independent judiciary which selected independent, wealthy
people: these people were well respected within the common wealth, as they were not known to
depend on a job. By members of the common wealth, these people perceived as fair and just; in
other words, they were “Justice of Peace!” Eventually, the common law became well-established
and became the official “Rule of Law!” So the “English Constitution” then emerged which was
the accumulative development of law and practice. The English Constitution also made it
possible for Conservatives to stand the test of time.
Theories of Human Nature
Thomas Hobbes explained that the theories of human nature evolved around felicity,
which is the personal decisions of a man who progresses from his current state, and then unto the
accomplishment of a greater desire: the voluntary decisions of an individual man are usually for

Shepler, 8
the greater benefit of his future well-being. The principle of existence is to make the form of
place or position that pertains to a future course. Thomas Hobbes explained that life “can never
be without Desire, nor without Feare, no more than without Sense” (Hobbes, 31). He explained
more that behavior resulting from a fulfilled desire cannot be felicity, but rather the end of a
profound dedication with no perception of the mind or concept of created emotion: “… the
object of mans desire, is (…) to assure for ever, the way of his future desire” (Hobbes, 31).
Therefore, the practical advantage accomplishment does not end until he experiences the nature
of dying.
Even though one man may excel and outperform another within a particular area or field,
equality is dispersed among mankind. Hobbes found that there is achieved importance relating to
the control of the mind: Usually, the foresight of wisdom attained from the business activities
that a man pursues, develops after the act of personally experiencing the method of practice. So,
it is by human nature of mankind to attain skills with just experience within a particular field of
work or concentration of study. And in the same nature, to see other commoners of lesser value
than he, even if no competition is present. Mankind recognizes his own achievements and
purpose of goal; not that of another individual. So, the man then views himself as being greater
than another who is in the distance, as “… this proveth rather that men are in that point equall,
then unequal” (Hobbes, 33): an unequalness within the state of mankind which disperses equality—
assuming, therefore, that this is the practice of all men.
Mankind may begin to feel a sense of dislike toward one-another when men progress
toward the same goal of accomplishment. For that reason, in the occurrence of progressing
toward the end of life, other members of mankind will make an effort to put an end to each other.
Man may begin to deprive another of his worthwhile achievements, when in the case that a man
intrudes upon another and fears nothing but the ability and acquired strength of the other man.
When there is no ability of accomplishment to restrain the interest of others, a man enjoys no

Shepler, 9
satisfaction from people who may socialize for friendship. According to Hobbes, “… in the
nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, Competition; Secondly,
Diffidence; [and] Thirdly, Glory” (Hobbes, 34). Moreover, intruders may compete with one another
to acquire the ability and strength of another man, as well as the quality of assurance and to bring
forth upon him a lesser material worth upon him: the occurrence of conflict exist until freedom
and liberty is re-developed.
Alienation may then occur because of the strong yearning of mankind. This yearning of
the intruder is not immoral because there is no established law that determines his acts as a
wrong doing; though, each man does have the right to protect himself with his own power.
Uncivilized individuals who may be cruel, rude, and barbarous “have no government at all; and
live at this day in that brutish manner” (Hobbes, 35). This quarrel (man against man) within
mankind usually exists until an established common power forms from the “convenient Articles
of Peace (…) otherwise are called the Lawes of Nature” (Hobbes, 36).
According to Locke, a person being born into a common wealth may be placed under the
authority or influence of the common wealth, while others may unite their efforts as a group of
commoners or families. Also, each commoner has personal liberty and freedom, as each are born
under the authority of his parents—though this authority over them is but temporary—and are
not required to be under the authority of any others.
A commoner may claim his own labor—that being the work of his hands and body—as
his own personal property. In some cases, an example of a person's labor that he may claim as
his own may be repairing something that was once broke, or ruined, and putting it back into
working condition. In the progression through stages of trade and manufacturing, different values
were placed on commoners who produced products within an industry—those values were
dispersed unto the commoners in paper currency.
The proper arrangement relating to the liberty of a person's property is like the equality of

Shepler, 10
mankind. For example, the potential of all men are the same because they all have the same
opportunities within the common wealth. Though, it is in nature for some commoners to object
some options that are provided because of the fact that it may not be something that he wants, or
what is being provided may not relate to his projected position within the common wealth—in
relations to the preservation of a future state. Commoners also have the freedom and natural right
to discard some of his property. Therefore, in similarity to some people turning down
opportunities within the common wealth, and because of the fact that the opportunities may not
benefit his projected position or future state, then some commoners may have different types or
qualities of property when compared to others.
The Origin of the State
Hobbes explained that Liberty that was established from the “Right of Nature,” which
granted every man with the freedom to make his own decisions that may relate to the well-being
of his future state. In similarity to the right of nature, “The Law of Nature” excluded any actions
that may support any invalidation of the projected future state. So to be brief, and as discussed
under the nature of government, the main idea is to preserve the personal estates and property
within the common wealth. With altercations between mankind, some commoners alienate
theirself to preserve his life from any quarrel acts of mankind.
There is no freedom from harm or danger that may be caused by another, so the common
practice of peace is attained from a second law of nature that is summarized as the following: the
“Law of the Gospel (…) and that Law of all men” (Hobbes, 37). To summarize, the two laws share
a likeness that peaceful actions should voluntarily be dispersed toward one-another (the famous
quote: do unto others as they do unto you). The transferring of rights is the exchange of freedom
and liberty that involves the life of another man for other freedoms that will support his future
state of preservation.

Shepler, 11
The last part of man is when he is able to perceive his projected preservation of life and
become removed from a quarrel state of anguish. Mankind may refer back to the laws of nature
for his own protection against quarrel acts. In this case, mankind may give their power to one
man or group and develop a common power for the protection of mankind. Therefore, becoming
confined within the discretion of a jurisdiction may protect one-another from immigrants, and
place his focus unto the will of the common power rather than on each other’s. And also support
the peace and well-being of the commons who had united into a common wealth. The man who
is established as the representative of the common wealth may continue to acquire power from
the commons, with the use of natural authority or ruination. Others may freely recognize the
authority of the sovereign power for the protection and preservation of his future within the
common wealth.
According to Locke, Human nature is regulated and controlled by a law, which
understanding the equality of man within a common wealth, and “all [being] equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, 48).
This law of nature being is what prevents conflicts between people within the common wealth.
Some commoners are placed under the authority of a civil officer, so the officer who has the
authority of administration of the law is similar to authority that involves the state or
government. In the resistance against harm, relating to the protection of the common wealth,
authority of the state and government may establish laws that will secure the required standards
that relates to the preservation of a person’s possessions.
Commoners cannot be forced to deprive of his property and possessions and placed under
the authority of the state, and government, because of the fact that he may have liberty and
freedom rights. Mankind establishes government with the intent to act as one political power.
Though, the greater part represents the established government and therefore retains its political
power. Within this commonwealth, all commoners should have the commitment to acknowledge

Shepler, 12
the will of the political power. So in similarity to the Roman Republic, commoners must lay
down their arms in regard to the political power: Generally, the state of government is
commoners uniting together into a “greater part” of political power.
Even though mankind has natural rights that relate to liberty and freedom, commoners are
under the authority of laws of the state and government. Therefore, commoners must comply
with the laws that are established within the common wealth. This applies to anyone who may be
within the confines of the common wealth—either temporarily or permanently.
The Nature of Government
According to Hobbes, the commoners, while united, formed under an agreement a
sovereign representative of the common wealth: the sovereign holds the appointed power of the
common wealth. Though this is the case, opinions and arrangements of the sovereignty are
governed by all commoners who exercised his right to cast vote. The arrangements of the
sovereign power are made with individual commons as well as the common wealth. Commoners
who are under the authority of the sovereignty are not responsible for any previous agreement of
arrangements; for that reason, he doesn't have the right to leave the common wealth completely.
Any commoner who acts toward ruining his sovereignty becomes subject to penalty. In
some cases, he may be deprived of life. Any commoner who make believes the infraction of the
agreement and assumes that the occurrence did not occur becomes placed under the authority of
violent power. Opinions and agreements don’t hold any actual power until the common wealth
and sovereignty acts out the agreements. Also, most commoners believe in individuality within a
common wealth and exercises his own achievement for personal desire. Even though commoners
may have different opinions that relate to the methods and authority of the common wealth and
sovereignty, he must agree to a compromise. Assuming that a commoner doesn't agree with the
compromise of the common wealth and sovereignty, he then becomes desolate.

Shepler, 13
Proper standards and morals are established by rules of the sovereignty. It is just that the
sovereign of the common wealth “to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse (…)
and shall examine the Doctrines of all bookes before they be published” (Hobbes, 43). Some
doctrines submitted by incompetent positions of power are sometimes misleading or not genuine.
So these rules provide commoners with the state of determining what acts he may pursue, and
what will bring about the most satisfaction and pleasure as they provide a sense of realization.
Those living under the authority of the common wealth and sovereignty are confined and
restricted with agony, so they desire and develop a demand.
According to Locke, the possession of a commoner's state of nature is made public and
vulnerable to invasion and overrun. In fact, the political power that regulates the equality and
lawfulness which relates to the satisfaction or pleasure of tangible possessions is not secure from
the liability of risk or protected (unconcealed and exposed to danger). So in order to preserve the
belongings or personal estates of the commoners, mankind establishes a common wealth where
the greater part represents its political power. Three fundamental principles of this common
wealth included the establishment of a law—that is of a general consent—in defining the
difference in agreement to what is proper and what is not in agreement with what is morally
right; second, with every commoner “in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of
nature, men being partial to themselves, (…) make them too remiss [or be passive in the
fulfillment of obligation] in other men's” (Locke, 54); and third, the strength and support of the
greater part. Most commoners take protection from danger by being placed under the authority of
laws that are established by the state and government. Because of the fact that in the sense of
equality, everyone has the right to subject others to discipline and penalty with the use of power,
so the advance of establishing laws and exercising administrative and oversight authority
becomes needed. With this legislative and executive power, commoners loose equality and
oversight so it becomes more important to preserve one's freedom and personal estates. Whoever

Shepler, 14
is named the sovereign of the common wealth is obligated to regulate the common wealth by
established laws.
In the sense of a common wealth, it is important to give legal form to the constituting of
power that pertains to the establishment of laws. Likewise, it is for the best interest of the
preservation of the common wealth to be regulated. Relating to the formation of laws, the
legislation is not unlimited power over commoners; especially, assuming that the power is
intended to ruin the preservation of his possessions or personal estate. Everyone within the
common wealth is united and shares power; though, the power is confined and restricted toward
the preservation of the future state. In the sense of establishing laws, the authoritative order of
judicial command must make known to commoners the fall of the authority of the common
wealth and established laws.
Many commoners may make the wrong use of the law of nature because of the fact that it
is not established as an actual law under the authority of the state or government. Some
commoners may exercise their liberty by joining other organizations or associations under the
authority of the common wealth that also support his ownership of personal estates, or other
property. Even though the commoners exercise liberty and freedom, they also may temporarily
defer his or her power to these organizations, associations, and common wealth by which they
then defer all of their power unto the legislation which establishes laws within the common
wealth. For that reason, the Legislator attains “the command of a hundred thousand than he that
is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men” (Locke, 58). Granted that,
commoners may still attain possession of the personal estates and property, even though they
defer their power over into the common wealth. Because of the fact that commoners may own
personal estates and property within the common wealth that is preserved by the power of the
common wealth and legislation, then he or she may subject their self to a taxation for service of
the preservation of his personal estates or property.

Shepler, 15
The Right of Revolution
No agreement made by the common wealth or sovereignty may renounce or surrender the
individual right of the commoner to the protection of himself, when the protection cannot be
provided by the sovereign power of the common wealth. Even though a commoner is not
allowed to leave the sovereignty, he may then find protection in one of the following ways when
the willingness to obey is no longer present: by attaining the protection that naturally develops,
by attaining the protection provided from himself and own established power, or by attaining the
protection from the authority of violent power from a higher common wealth and sovereignty.
According to Locke, the commoners have the liberty and freedom to participate in
removing the greater part of the common wealth—or in another sense, the sovereign or
legislator. This aggressiveness is restricted and confined by either commoners who act against,
or neglect, his or her duty that pertains to removing a sovereign or legislator from power. In the
occurrence of removing a sovereign or legislator from power, the common wealth may achieve
power for the assurance and freedom of the common wealth. After the commons unite towards
the act of removing the greater part of authority from the state or government, the commoners
believe that is when they are established as the “greater part” of the common wealth.
Conclusion
Democracy involved debates between Aristotle and Plato, as Aristotle’s argument
supported socialization within the polis which consisted of Greeks representing one-another and
developing policies while Plato argued that all democracy supported the lower social classes.
Democracy demanded equality and eventually provided educational institution to the Greek
polites. Democracy supported the freedom of the state and polite, as most Greeks represented
democracy as a state by participating with a vote. The Romans believed more in future

Shepler, 16
preservation, as preservation was actually their great honor. Eventually, the Greeks and Romans
formed a mixed government. So, the Romans then established a “Roman constitution” and
established authority with consuls and a sovereign to uphold common laws within the Roman
Republic; later, the “Law of Nations” was established. A Charter of Rights which was the first
carter of liberty—or, more commonly, the Magna Carta—was signed by the King after a victory
was declared of the Nobility. This was one example that limited the powers of government. The
power of government was also limited by the parliament which consisted of the House of Lords
and the House of Commons. Conservatives were able to stand the test of time because of the
English Constitution.
Thomas Hobbes explained how the nature of felicity will not end until death becomes
experienced. Even though equality is naturally present to one-another within the common wealth,
some commoners view theirself as being more important or better skilled than another. Articles
of Peace were establish (better known as the Laws of Nature) to provide the commoners and the
common wealth with support against intruders or against those who intend to trespass and harm
the future state. Some commoners alienate theirself into privacy which helps him preserve his
private estates and property. The transferring of rights, in a sense, supported equality: some
opportunities within the common wealth may benefit one commoner's future but not another's.
Also, some commoners may seek protection from the sovereign, as others may only seek
preservation. Commoners who become part of the common wealth are not reliable for any past
arrangements. Though, those commoners who do not agree with the common wealth as a whole,
may become laid to ruins or devastated. Most commoners are limited or restricted under the
common wealth. A commoner may leave the common wealth, completely, even though it is not
allowed, because of the fact that he may find protection from other sources such as his own
established power, or by submitting unto another common wealth.
Locke believed that the labor that was provided by a commoner could be claimed as his

Shepler, 17
own property, but he explained that each commoner who provided labor was worth different
values depending on his skill and labor. Some commoners, in relations to the transferring of
rights and equality, may have different qualities of properties. Laws became established within
the common wealth which supported the preservation of property. The greater part of political
power is upheld by the commoners uniting together. Established laws of the commonwealth
apply to any commoner within its jurisdiction. Commoners are required to abide by laws within
the common wealth which is governed by a sovereign. The desolate of the authority of the
common wealth is brought to the attention of the commons by the judicial authority. Because of
the service provided by the common wealth which relates to the preservation of the common
wealth, as well as the personal estates of the commoners, some commoners may pay a taxation
unto the common wealth. Because of liberty and freedom, commoners may unite into a greater
part of a common wealth and remove representatives from authority. In conclusion, even though
Republicanism established laws that required everyone within the common wealth to follow, for
the protection and preservation of the common wealth, democracy may therefore protect the
freedom and liberty of commoners, or citizens, by incorporating democratic rights that limit the
powers of the state or government.

Shepler, 18
Resources
Crick, Bernard. Democracy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Print.
Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001. Print.
Hobbes, Thomas. Infinite Desire and Absolute Government. 31-45. n.p. n.d. Print.
Locke, John. Natural Rights and Government by Consent. 46-60. n.p. n.d. Print.
Morrill, John. Stuart Britain: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Print.
United States. Cong. House of Representatives. The Constitution of the United States of
America. Document No. 110-50, Unratified Amendments. 110th Congress, 1st Session.
Washington: GPO, 2007. Digital.

Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and Greek

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and Greek

Similar to Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and Greek (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Republic and Democratic Philosophies of Government which originated from the Romans and Greek