The Boundaries Of Consent By Thomas Hobbes And John Locke...

The Boundaries Of Consent By Thomas Hobbes And John Locke...
According to Britannica.com, consent is defined as, "an act of permitting something to be done or of
recognizing some authority." This definition is a fact that almost all political theorists can agree on,
however, the boundaries surrounding this definition leaves us asking many questions; how did we
consent, to whom do we consent to, and when did we consent? Most importantly is the question: did
we consent at all? When we go back to the fundamentals of defining how, when, and if we
consented, we will derive that we never consented at all. In the following essay, I will define the
boundaries of consent, give a summary of the various philosophical arguments given for political
obligation, and disseminate these arguments.
There are five main theories to political obligation: Consent Theory, Fairness Theory, Community
Theory, Morality Theory, and Philosophical anarchism. The most significant argument for political
obligation is called consent theory. Consent theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke,
believe that we should obey the law because we have consented to do so. Although all consent
theorists can agree that we have consented to the law, the boundaries of consent are a common
disagreement.
Therefore, when considering political authority and obligation, we must first develop the boundaries
of consent. There are two different types of consent within political theory; expressed consent and
tacit consent. One gives expressed consent when we announce – either through
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Karl Marx's On The Jewish Question
The State of nature – The state of nature is a situation in which people live without a government,
but under a social contract in order to justify political authority. Referred to by many theorists such
as Jean–Jacques Rousseau, John Locke or Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is often seen the raw
state of mankind and much debated topic. While theorists such as Hobbes claim that savage man, in
the state of nature, will always be violent and act in his own interest and that this is why a social
contract is necessary, others like Rousseau argue that savage man only wishes to fulfill his most
basic needs and entering into society is actually what corrupts him. Anarchist authors like Kropotkin
also argue for the state of nature, saying that man is by nature a social being, and that the state is
what only introduces conflict between people. The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One of the main themes in Marx's "On the Jewish Question" is emancipation. For Marx, true
emancipation comes in two stages, which are those illustrated in this passage: political and human
emancipation. Marx does insist that political emancipation is a step toward true emancipation,
however it does not yield complete emancipation, which is necessary for true freedom. While the
government can say that all classes and races are equal, the people may still act racist or distinguish
between classes. This is why human emancipation is the key to freedom. How does Marx aim to
achieve this? Human emancipation, as Marx says, comes down to the members of society to act as a
species–being and rather than acting in their own interest, members of a society must act in the
interest of all. This means they should abolish religion, race, and class differences autonomously.
Whether society will abandon the limitations it places on itself is questionable, yet it is a
requirement for

John Locke Vs Hobbes Essay
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of the 17th century; they
both provided the world with relevant philosophical texts on how our government should function
and govern and their works have both had profound impacts on modern political science. Although
Hobbes and Locke share similarities, Hobbes and Locke have contrasting perceptions on most of
their political arguments, particularly on the state of nature. Hobbes and Locke are often paired; both
are 17th–century English philosophers and both are state–of–nature theorists who articulate
teachings of natural equality and natural liberty, and both describe civil society and government as
artifacts of human invention (Kosten, 2015). Although they have an array ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, Hobbes and Locke both attempted to comprehend how man has socialized while leaving
behind him the animal state (Lloyd, 2018). Thomas Hobbes held a negative conception of the state
of nature; in his interpretation, it signifies a state of recurring war, a threat to the existence of man
(Josephson, 2017). Firstly, Hobbes reinforces that all human beings are equal, any man can
dominate others regardless of the means used, he believes that people act out of desire and greed, a
need to fulfill a craving, and men are in constant competition to satisfy these needs and thus, each
being tries to dominate the other (Josephson, 2017). Contrastingly, according to John Locke, the
state of nature does not mean a state of constant war as Hobbes depicts in his works; instead, Locke
describes the state of nature is one of equality, as everyone has equal powers as their neighbors
(Josset, 2017). Locke depicts that this is a state of freedom, as the individual cannot depend on
anyone, men are free, equal and independent; however, humans have the right to punish an offender
who violated the principle of "peace and preservation of mankind", requiring the

Political Justice
The idea of justice in Western political thought has been debated throughout history. Political
theorists still debate the definition of justice and its role in government, with no one conclusion
sticking out as absolute truth. In this paper, I will observe how justice is viewed and used in the
popular political drama, House of Cards, particularly by the show's main anti–hero Francis (Frank)
Underwood. This analysis will provide insight on how popular culture can have an impact on how
people view the real world.
Before delving into the show, it is first necessary to understand the basics of justice. The best place
to start is with Greek philosopher Plato's Republic. At first he claims that justice "isn't concerned
with someone's doing externally, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This leads to the question of whether or not justice is a viable part of the political system at all. This
is a question echoed in the opinions of the estimated 5 million1 people who follow the series. The
possible effects this piece of popular culture can have on the public's view of justice in the real–life
American political system can prove to be captivating. Since many of the actions Underwood takes
in the show can be viewed as reminiscent to actions taken by real–life government officials, the
parallel is easily made by fans and, according to Karen Dill2
, a media psychologist, can influence how the public holds governmental officials accountable for
their unjust decisions and whether or not they believe the government is corrupted.
Political theorists, both the current and former Presidents, and the general public have weighed in on
whether or not House of Cards reveals political reality. This is proof enough to justify an
investigation into how this show affects the public's idea of

The Marxist Theory Is The Political And Economic Theories...
The Marxist theory is the political and economic theories originated by German theorists: Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels. Marx was born in Germany in 1818 and studied philosophy and law. He was
among many the most important authors of sociology and was best known as the "father of
Marxism" (McIntyre, 21). Along with Friedrich Engels, he wrote and published The Communist
Manifesto. This document helped shape the revolutions that reconstructed much of the world with
over the course of the next century. According to Marx the most important thing about society is the
way a society is organized to produce goods and services, also known as mode of production. The
relationships among people and people's relationships to the forces of production are how decisions
were made about what to do with the outcomes. The Marxist theory recognizes several typical
modes of production and characteristics of different periods in our past history (McIntyre, pg28)
These modes of production includes: "Primitive communism" which had no categorized social class
structures or capital growth, "Asiatic mode" which is allegedly the original form of society where
small groups removes social additions through violence directed at settled or unsettled band groups
within a domain. "Ancient mode" is when property is the control of the individual, the forces of
production connected with this mode is the widespread use of animals in agriculture, and advanced
trade networks." Feudalism" the property is the

The Views Of John Locke And Thomas Hobbes
Throughout history, there have been many political philosophers whom influenced the government
seen in history books and in modern–day society. Despite the varying ideas about government by
each political theorist, aspects of each individual idea can be seen in several political documents
such as the United States Declaration of Independence. One of these political theorists being
Thomas Hobbes, who believed that people would benefit greatly from a Monarch. While John
Locke, another renowned political theorist believed that, though the government could help the
people, but did not need absolute control over every aspect of their lives. Though, both theorists had
different ideology on the structure of the government the ideas would later go on to influence
several political documents including the United States Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Hobbes born in 1588, was an English political theorist who believed in Monarchy. Hobbes
felt that humans, by nature were inherently selfish beings. During the English Civil war, he
expressed the need for an absolute ruler. Like how a man has control over his household. To
Hobbes, "without an absolute ruler people would kill each other" (Lawrence Smith Lecture). Due to
humans being inherently selfish, they would risk the commonwealth of the community for
themselves. This would likely cause complications in society and the social disorder. Hobbes
conveyed that, "laws make people behave as civilized people" and without them, people

The Importance Of Human Nature
Ideas about human nature are central to theorizing about politics because humans are the center of
politics. Politics would not exist without human nature. One theory says that, something that
humans are born with requires us to generally desire the company of other humans and thus a need
for political structure is born. Once more than a few people inhabit an area, the desire for a
functioning society kicks in and defines the rulers and the ruled. However, this viewpoint is not
shared by all theorists. The disagreement in theories bring about the nature versus nurture, reason
versus impulse, and naturally selfish verses naturally altruistic arguments which are key to
understanding human nature. The nature versus nurture argument is referred to as "perhaps the most
fundamental debate about human nature" (Heywood, 17). This classic argument centers around
which is more important: biology or social environment. The nature theorists argue that there are
established and unchanging human characteristics that everyone is born with. This theory implies
that to understand politics one must understand biology, as this is where politics stems from. This
theory takes on a scientific nature, rather than a political one. The most impactful biological theory
was that of Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (Heywood, 17). Darwin theorized that
species develop through random genetic mutations which only some of the species are granted.
Those not granted the mutations did not prosper

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau Essay
Thomas Hobbes and Jean–Jacques Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes and Jean–Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men
govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government
gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most
influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world
influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people
develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social
contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes
and Rousseau agreed that certain ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbes lived in the 17th century, and wrote
during the time of the English Civil War. His political views were most likely influenced by the war.
Hobbes perceived that by bringing back the monarch, or any other sovereign, there would be an end
to the civil war and is "necessary to peace and depending on sovereign power" (415). The original
state of nature, according to Rousseau, is the perfect state for man, where he is born free but is
everywhere in chains (The Social Contract, 49). In the original state, man lives alone in innocence
where he is virtuous. Rousseau does not agree that man is an aggressive and greedy being in the
original state of nature; in contrast, the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as
Hobbes suggests (Leviathan, 408). Rousseau argues that men are truly happy in the state of nature.
Only when men become sociable, they become wicked. In Rousseau's Social Contract, man is
depicted as an ignorant, unimaginative animal.
Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but
the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men's
passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their
original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of

Concept of Freedom in Political Theory
Why is the concept of freedom so contested in political theory? (Word maximum: 1,500) Freedom is
an important concept in Western politics, strongly entwined as it is with ideas of liberalism. Yet, as
suggested by the question, the concept is one which is hotly debated. Indeed, political agents attempt
to control the political agenda through promotion of their particular definition. This essay will look
at the ways freedom has been defined by different theorists over the years. It will also look at how
freedom is linked with and explained through different theo–ries and ideologies. It will then go on to
look at how these different theories and ideologies may shape the conceptions of freedom we find in
our daily lives. Different ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This approach may be considered stifling of both innovation and effort, since anything above the
average will not be rewarded. By contrast, if equality of opportunity is achieved, then some will
accumulate more wealth and power than others, giving them effectively more freedom. John Rawls
(1971, cited in Middleton, 2005) introduced two principles of justice, the first of which was that
'each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty
for others'. Rawls attempted to address the question of inequality through the second of his
principles: the 'difference principle'. In this he said that it was acceptable for some to be better off
than others as long as by doing so the poorest people also benefitted in some way. In other words,
inequality was acceptable if some of the extra benefit were redistributed to those most in need. This
approach is an example of positive freedom. However, Isaiah Berlin (1969, cited in Smith, 2005),
known as a chief architect of theories of positive and negative freedom, saw dangers in this
approach too. He argued that it was wrong to ascribe to individuals a set of common needs and
desires. Moreover, he considered that the surrender of individual freedom for collective self–rule
could result in individual rights being violated. He concluded that a measure of both

Adolf Hitler: A Political Theorist
Most would not recognize Adolf Hitler of being a political theorist, due to the fact of the horrific
events that transpired under his control. However, he indeed was one for better or worse. His views
about the political world were extreme to say the least and he often wrote his theories in need or due
to circumstance (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm. His views were
mostly formed in three time periods of his life
(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm). The first one was in his years of a
young man without many means to survive. This period was prior to World War I when he lived in
Vienna and Munich (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm). Information
he would ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The primary enemy to Hitler was Communism and he often spoke about this in Mein Kampf:
"In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of
which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of
the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated." (Adolf
Hitler, Mein Kampf)
He believed that the goal of economics should be efficiency and not equality the total opposite of
Communists (http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.htm). In fact Communists were the first to
qualify for sentencing for death camps before Jews and Gypsies
(http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.htm). Hitler thought that Communism was a Jewish
conspiracy to take over power and recognized Karl Marx the founder of Communism to be 100%
Jewish (http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.htm).
His theory was that Aryans characterized by having blond hair and blue eyes of Christian German
descent should rule and take over the world since they were far more superior than other races
(http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.htm). This is very hypocritical because Hitler himself
was not an Aryan ad therefore he himself should have been eliminated. His political aim was to kill
anyone who did not fit this description and he did not only just hate Jews, he hated anyone who did
not fit

The Pros And Cons Of Economic Neomercantilism
In general, economic neomercantilism stresses the need for the use of military and political force in
conflict situations or defending "hegemonic position" for the purpose of strengthening the economic
position of the dominant powers. Neomercantilism has two main strains that are relevant to IPE. The
first largely neglects economic matters, and the second is more attuned to economic–political
interactions. The first strain was evident in the views of Niccolo Machiavelli (1420–1527) who
considered that military power is more important than wealth in making war because "gold alone
will not procure good soldiers, but good soldiers will always procure gold". The other strain of
realism is associated with a distinctive realist approach to IPE. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In general, the constructivist view propounds that material interests are not sufficient to explain
patterns of economic interactions or policies, and that economic and political identities are
significant determinants of economic action.
Constructivism focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and discourse in shaping outcomes.
Constructivists reject the realist assertion that by simply observing the distribution of military forces
and economic capabilities in the material world we can explain how states will interact.
Constructivists suggest that conflict or cooperation between two or more actors is a product of those
actors' different values, beliefs, and interests.
The four basic assumptions of constructivism applied to IPE are as follows:
1. Ideas, values, norms, and identities of individuals, groups, and states are socially constructed;
2. Ideas and values are social forces that are as important as military or economic factors;
3. Conflict or cooperation are products of values and beliefs;
4. Some international political changes are driven by changes in the values and beliefs of actors over
time.
Questions:
1. Is hegemony necessary and/or sufficient to produce an open, stable economic system?
2. From your point of view, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the neomercantilism approach
to

In General Terms, Democracy Is Characterized As A Government
In general terms, democracy is characterized as a government in which citizens have the capabilities
to exercise political autonomy to influence the affairs of the state. To be more precise, citizens are
able to exercise direct control over the government–as in the case of pure democracies–or they are
able to exercise indirect control–as in the case of representative democracies. Of course this general
characterization is an oversimplification of what a democracy is and precisely how it functions.
However, the ability of the citizenry to influence state affairs is the bedrock that generally constitute
a democracy.
In an attempt to further sharpen this concept, I found it necessary in my previous paper to consider
what democracy looks ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Second, in recognizing that democracy can take on the extreme of these tendencies, my
characterization now includes the assumption that democracy requires a relative nature–a constant
shift between consolidation and decentralization–to guard against the possibilities of tyranny by the
minority or the majority. Lastly, in recognizing these possibilities, my definition now assumes that
the role of the citizenry should be to understand the relative nature of democracy and the
implications it has regarding political power and the stability of the state. While I have incorporated
these additional assumptions, I still retained my definition: democracy is a relative struggle between
consolidation and decentralization. As such, I have found much support and reinforcement from the
different theorist and literatures explored this semester. In my first revision of my original
conception of democracy, I eliminated the restrictions that tied the driving tendencies of democracy
to oligarchism and anarchism, and expanded these tendencies to all notions of consolidating or
decentralizing political power. As such, my argument is that democracy is driven by two opposing
forces that aims to consolidate political power in the hands of a few, or decentralize political power
in the

Francois Quesnay
Alexis Parker
Miss Umpleby
West. Civ. – Pd. 6
1 December 2015
Francois Quesnay
Francois Quesnay was the founder of the economic system that eventually was called the
physiocratic system. He was born on June 4, 1694 in Paris, France. His father was a country lawyer
that didn 't get payed very much money. Francois didn 't receive any financial aid from his family to
get an education. In result of no education, he didn 't learn how to read until he was twelve years
old. However, he was able to gain some knowledge of medicine as a young adult. In 1718, at the age
of only 24, he started practicing medicine in the village of Mantes. Between 1730 and 1758, he
began to write several medical papers that contained very original contributions from well–known
people.
Francois didn 't obtain a formal medical degree until 1744. However, in 1735, his reputation was so
good that he had gotten a position in Paris as a physician to the Duke of Villeroy. After that position,
he decide to move to Versailles, having a new boss named Madame de Pompadour. When he got
there, he became a consulting physician to Louis XV and got to meet many popular economists at
the time. After realizing moving to Versailles was an excellent decision, he decided to live there for
the rest of his life.
Francois had written many things on medicine for awhile, but he didn 't publish his first writing on
economics until 1756, which was in his early sixties. Realizing how much he liked writing about

Essay about A Summary of Introduction to the New Edition...
Summary of Introduction to the New Edition
In Stuart Ewen's All Consuming Images, the preface "Introduction to the New Edition" opens by
giving the audience varying progressing images, from break dance to Madonna to Windows 95. This
demonstrates a fast change in society: what matters in the history may not be an important issue
now. Ewen then questions how a book written earlier still remains important and deserves
republication. The book is durable because of the fact that it was written when the idea "images are
everywhere" begins to develop. From political stand point, all the images, or specifically
propaganda, that people see are to manipulate people's emotions. In economic sphere, due to the
ubiquitous advertising, marketing ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
is not so lucky facing the same situation. She lost her identity and become an "OREO", black on the
outside and white on the inside. Many of these standards of style have been heavily influenced by
the media, where the progressing visual–study of culture has developed throughout the years. Yet,
these images can be a kind of "false reality", where people cannot explicitly see the reality beneath
those pictures, thus question the "visual pretenses of the world". Ewen analyzes these students'
stories in order to understand those challenges they faced and how they struggle to discover
themselves in this "marketplace of style." Gustave Le Bon's book The Crowd provides ideas of the
public mind and discusses how the "mass mind" can take over individuality. This means that in a
group of people, the popular mind will replace one's thought. Like Thomas Hobbes, Le Bon believes
that people are irrational, and everything has to be in order or else there will be social instability.
To know the art of impressing the imagination of crowds is to know at the same time the art of
governing them...Crowds have always undergone the influence of illusions. Whoever can supply
them with illusions is easily their master. When studying the imagination of crowds, we [see] that it
is particularly open to the impressions produced by images. A crowd thinks in images, and the image
itself immediately calls up a series of other images, having no logical connection with

Hobbes And Locke Compare And Contrast
Compare and contrast Hobbes's and Locke's views of the state of nature and the fundamental
purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why? Introduction Thomas Hobbes
and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural
law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature,
Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from
those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke's perspective of human
nature wasn't quite as fine as Hobbe's, although it was much simpler to understand based on its
logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is
radical and far–reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke's.
Unlike Locke's perspective therefore, self–interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes' perspective of
the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994). According to Hobbes, the absence of authority delineates the
state of nature. Hobbes believes that all men are equal in spite of the fact that some may appear
smarter or tougher than others. In addition, humans are in perpetual state of war as they are self–
centered and will often be willing to do anything that is at their personal interests (Hobbes, 1994).
Locke however maintains that in the state of nature, humans live in accordance with reason and that
there is no "superior" to act as the judge. Locke is of the view that the state of nature differs from the
state of war, and that it contains equality and each person has identical powers (Locke, 2005). While
Hobbes uses Laws of Nature in his logical argument, they appear to be less universally binding
compared to Locke's. Indeed, they specifically apply in circumstances where an individual's life
feels secure. In principle however, humans are generally inclined to comply with them. Conversely,
in the practical life situation, the desire for self preservation takes precedence. Hence, a civil society

Citizenship The Perspectives Of Political Theorists...
To tackle the term citizenship the perspectives of political theorists Aristotle and Hanna Pitkin come
in handy in conceptualizing the term. Such honorable theorists have unique and yet intriguing views
of citizenship, types of citizenship and the roles they play in societies. Although both theorists have
different views and perspectives, they seem to come to similar conclusion when dissecting the
difference between citizenship doing action and citizenship in the form of membership. Thus, the
distinction between citizen doing an action and citizen in the form of membership is that: action is a
collective process for the betterment of society while membership is living a settled life within the
system already constructed. However, one can argue that both forms of citizenship, action and
membership are the same since they both are constructed under the same society. Because society is,
as Pitkin puts it, the realm of behavior which excludes the possibility of action and normalizes its
members (Pitkin). Thus by limiting the possibility of action, society acquires members of society
whom live by the rules and structures for which society is already designed. Although one can claim
that, because of the restrictions society imposes on action, there is no distinction between action and
membership; I don't believe limited action and stagnant membership are the same. In her writing,
Hanna Pitkin does a nice job not only illustrating her political theory, but also comparing it to

Legitimacy and the Foundations of Legitimate Government...
Legitimacy and the Foundations of Legitimate Government
In this paper, it is my intention to discuss the issue of legitimacy as it relates to government. I will
explore what a legitimate government necessarily consists of; that is, I will attempt to formulate a
number of conditions a government must meet in order to be considered legitimate.
A logical starting point in an investigation of legitimate government would seem to be an account of
the original purpose of government. Problems arise, though, in discovering this original purpose;
any and all attempts seem to consist of mere speculation. Government is a social convention created
by man.* It is doubtful whether or not there can ever be an empirically accurate account of the ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is a huge assumption and one that I am unwilling to accept.
The second option the political theorist has is to accept that any attempt to give a foundational
theory of legitimate government will depend partly upon speculation. This does not mean, of course,
that this speculation has no boundaries. The theorist must tailor a speculative account as closely as
possible to the reality of things. What I mean by this is that the theorist must try to mirror reality as
closely as possible, only filling in those areas which need filling. In addition, the theorist has an
obligation to make clear which parts are empirical and which parts are speculative.
On the speculative side, most theories of legitimacy will include both an account of human nature
and the origins of government. These accounts are not to be taken as literal histories, or even
historical theories. Speculative accounts should be taken at face value and appreciated for what they
are: useful thought experiments. To take an account of human nature or the origins of government in
any other way is foolish at best. It is my belief that there is an inherent value in these thought
experiments. They are tremendous starting points for theories of legitimate government and reveal a
great amount of insight into the views of the theorist. I believe that in adopting the position espoused
by the second option

Alexander Hamilton, A Brilliant Political Theorist
Introduction Alexander Hamilton, born in 1757, was a brilliant political theorist. Despite his poor
origins, he was able to use his intelligence to raise his rank in the colonies and contribute to the
founding of the United States of America. Hamilton's role as an immigrant and soldier both helped
him reach his ambition and mature the ideas he would later be famous for. His life experiences
influenced his beliefs to push for a strong central government.
Influential Events in Life Born to a father who was occasionally employed as a clerk and a mother
who died when he was eleven, Hamilton grew up in poverty and was left to take care of himself. His
childhood led to his pessimistic views on humankind and his obsession with the concept of nobility.
As a result, he strived to improve himself socially and economically, eventually leading to his
immigration to the colonies. His immigration to New York caused him to be detached from the
states' rivalries and resentments. For example, he changed the location of the capital from New
York, which would have been better for his state, to a location along the Potomac River in order to
gain backing for his financial plan for the federal government's assumption of state debts. In
addition, although New York already paid its debts, Hamilton still created the financial plan in order
to strengthen the United States. Hamilton cared more for his country than for his state, allowing him
to make purposeful decisions that helped produce the

Annotated Bibliography : Types Of Leftist Governments
Steven Venegas
July 23, 2016 Annotated Bibliography
Question: What preexisting or absent institutions have led Latin American nations to see a
divergence in the types of leftist governments in power?
Group 1: Party Systems and Political Institutions
French, John. 2010. "Many Lefts, One Path? Chavez and Lula." In Latin America's Left Turns:
Politics, Policies, and Trajectories of Change. Eds. Maxwell A. Cameron & Eric Hershberg.
Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 41–60.
French poses that "the key to unity that exists in within the left's diversity... can be found in the
notion of the left as a space of convergence across difference based on a common anti neoliberal
politics." (French, p. 42) This idea allows for an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
All of these features of a regime, if disrupted or altered, could be the difference between a stable
democracy and it demonstrating a radical archetype of ascendancy. After explaining both
alternatives, Mainwaring comes to the conclusion that "Presidentialism and a fractionalized multi
party system seems especially inimical to stable democracy" in that they are conducive to gridlock
between the executive and legislative branches of government. (Mainwaring, p. 168)
Levitsky, Steven, and Kenneth M. Roberts. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins UP, 2011. Print.
Theorists Steven Levitsky and Kenneth Roberts articulate two divergent paths that the left took as a
result of their party systems and political institutions, or lack there of. The two give light to the
divergence of an institutional path and a populist path, which they are able to closely associate to
various political regimes currently in power throughout Latin America. This further branches out
how even following the presidential path, rather than parliamentary, can see more divisions.
Mainwaring, Scott. "Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination."
Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 26: July 1993. Pp. 198–228.
Noting that multipartism isn't conducive for the consolidation of democracy and that there are many
regimes following the

Liberty, Justice, And Gender: An Unfinished Debate
"With Liberty and Justice for All" is the last line of the Pledge of Allegiance, but what does liberty
and justice really mean? Early social contract philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean–
Jacques Rousseau, try to define legitimate government, justice, and liberty. However, they do so
without including women in their discussions. They only address men and are speaking to a white
male audience. These philosophers laid many of the political foundations for America, which has
had a lot of repercussions for women. Do we really all have liberty and justice? Social contract
theorists are trying to find justice, yet they try to do so without gender justice. The early
philosophers of social contract theory, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are not justified in their
arguments because they do not include women and there is no justice without gender justice. Later
philosophers such as Charles Mills, John Rawls, and Susan Moller Okin find flaw in these writing ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are many complicated ideas surrounding justice and gender. Susan Moller Okin beings her
essay "Gender, Justice and Gender: An Unfinished Debate" by defining the terms gender and justice.
She defines justice as a social justice, or an equal distribution of goods and benefits. Gender is
difficult to define since its conception has changed a lot throughout history. The simplest definition
is that gender is a social construct that goes well beyond a person's biological sex. Moller Okin
details the complexities of gender and the ways gender is socialized. The definition of gender has
changed throughout history through feminisms from a binary to a spectrum to a three–dimensional
space in which to express oneself. This essay mostly focuses on the binary and the gender hierarchy
found in patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system that values men over women. Men have an assumed place
of power and privilege above women. The early philosophers lived in a definite patriarchal

The Social Contract Theory Of Society
The social contract theory is the view that in order to form a stable society, a contract or agreement
must made implementing the people's ethical and political obligations . Before this theory people
lived in the state of nature meaning, there was no government and no laws were enforced to control
their community . Everyone did what they wanted freely. Although "freely" may sound like a good
thing; when someone committed, what we call in today's society, a crime, they received no
punishment for it back then . The Social Contract was a way for people to organize their own
government and assemble laws that had to be followed by everyone. Doing so, allowed people to
find understanding in how administration and authority works, and allowed ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
As time went on a theorist arose, a man named John Locke. Along with him having a different
perception of the social contract theory compared to Thomas Hobbes, he also had a different view
on what the state of nature was. Locke was actually the most influential theorist to the founding
fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson . The third theorist was John Rawls. Rawls name for his
theory of the social contract was actually often called the A Theory of Justice . These three theorists
of the Social Contract have strong beliefs about how a government should work and what concepts
are most important, as well as I do. I've proposed a Social Contract that's based on different views
and different philosophical justifications from these three theorists. My social contract is based on a
very thoughtful and intellectual idea of fariness and equality among our nation. Before societies
came into existence people lived an ordinary life. Everyone went through accomplishments and
tragedies, as we do now. However, people didn't have laws implemented to protect them from any
type of crime. Regulations weren't put into action to eliminate the taking advantage of lower class
citizens. I've based my Social Contract off of the issue of crime and people in higher ranking taking
advantage of others below them. My social contract is an agreement between the people and those
holding specific positions in the government, where the main focus is equality and fairness being
present between

Political Theorists, Niccolo Machiavelli And Socrates
Political theorists, Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates, formulated their thoughts in heightened
political climates in their respective countries leading to their definitive and explicit opinions
surrounding how a governmental system should be run. The government systems proposed by both
theorists are vastly different due to what each individual prioritizes in terms of political necessities.
Machiavelli's concept is to describe the means in obtaining power in order to define a political
structure that maintains strength in a society. He maintains this power through any means necessary
including violence and presumably deceitful acts while instilling fear among his inferiors. On the
contrast, through The Apology and Crito, a reader can infer ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A "Machiavellian government" is one that takes violence into consideration when obtaining a leader
position as well as a means in maintaining structured citizens. In contrast, Socrates does not speak of
means in obtaining this form of leadership, however, he speaks of devoting his life to wisdom and
spreading knowledge on pure 'goodness' among humans. Socrates shows little interest in a
governmental system that is comprised of citizens who fear their leader, but instead, citizens and
rulers who respect and strive for a common good among all.
Machiavelli argues that both love and fear cannot exist in a society, therefore he comes to the
conclusion that a Prince should strive for fear from his citizens. He rationalized this concept by
stating that "fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails" (XVII, 61). Machiavelli
creates a scene that distributes the citizens of a society into a tight hierarchy whereas the sovereign
is controlling and threatening. This form of government follows strict guidelines with no form of
justice for the guilty. In this setting, Socrates would not receive the right to defend himself in front
of a court in the way he has in the Apology. In his spiel, he states his love for Athens and the
authority that governs, he does not fear his superiors, rather, respects them. Socrates' opportunity to
stand in front of a jury

The Main Ideas of Liberal Political Theory
Examine the main ideas of Liberal political theory
It is perhaps safe to say that the most prominent political philosophy in contemporary era is
liberalism. Liberalism is based on the ideas of liberal political theorists of the last three hundred
years. Among these ideas, the first and most important deals with the question of liberty. Political
theorists such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill argued that liberty of individual citizens must be
upheld by the state. Mill particularly stated that the state should be liberal by default. The burden of
proving that liberty should be restricted or prohibited should lie on the states. Unless they can
provide such proof, all citizens should by presumption be at liberty. Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes
stated that liberty could be restricted under certain circumstances. For instance, when the state is
threatened by a revolt, and since the state is the guarantor of liberty of all its subjects, the state is
justified in curtailing some liberal policies but temporarily. The government under liberal political
theory is viewed as a necessary evil. The theory suggests that the power and the role of the state
should be minimized. There should also be a balance of power in the state. Democracy is essential
for liberal political theory. Citizens should enjoy both liberty and the freedom to elect or, in the
absence of liberal political order, overthrow the government. But the liberties of citizens cannot be
guaranteed in a state of anarchy.

Aristotle, Joseph Schumpeter, Milton Friedman, And John Rawls
The concept of equality is multi–faceted and widely debated among scholars. While there is no
singular definition for equality, equality deals with the distribution of some "thing" in a specific
domain. For this paper, equality will be narrowed down to the domains of economic and political. It
is essential to note that distinct types of equality can become conditions for equality in a different
domain. In this case, economic equality will be analyzed as a condition for political equality. How is
it exactly that economic equality can undermine political equality? By answering this question, this
paper will prove that economic equality is a necessary pre–condition for political equality. I will do
this by analyzing the political writings of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The free person has the ability to pursue their own telos economically, but the slave can only be a
slave, subjugated to a master. As a result of this economic inequality, the political equality of the
slave is undermined as they cannot be a citizen within the polis. In addition to Aristotle, economist
Joseph Schumpeter is also of importance because of his theories on democracy. In his book
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter explicated his new theory of democracy and
defines it as the "rule of the politician." With this new theory, he makes it clear that he is deviating
from the classical notion of 18th century democracy presented by Rousseau and Bentham.
Schumpeter writes that this traditional model of democracy could be defined as "the democratic
method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the
common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are
to assemble in order to carry out its will" (Schumpeter 250). His major critique on such democracy
entails the assumption of a common good because he believes that people cannot achieve a
conclusion of what the general will is. Thus, Schumpeter posits his own theory of democracy, which
can be defined as follows: "that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which
individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote"
(Schumpeter 269). This

Alexis De Tocqueville, And Max Weber's Analysis
The idea of human freedom is seen in multiple aspects through the eyes of multiple theorists.
Human freedom is an extensive topic because it extends throughout many different aspects of life,
such as politics, religion, and education to name a few. Throughout this paper, I intend to address the
aspects of human freedom as seen through the writings of Emile Durkheim, Alexis de Tocqueville,
and Max Weber. Each theorist presents his own ideas on what human freedom really is and how it
can exist, but they also share a few ideas as well. Durkheim is best known for his work Suicide in
which he discusses the restraints and regulations put on members of society. For Durkheim, this is
where human freedom exists; liberty exists in restraint. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Men tend to cling to equality more than freedom because the advantages are instantaneously
evident, and they think it will last forever. Oppositely, the advantages of freedom are not as quickly
evident, and after all, Western society is all about the now and how quick one can see results for
their efforts. Political liberty requires great exertion while political equality evidences itself
everywhere and is much easier to come by. Because of this, Tocqueville believes that if men seek
equality and freedom and do not find it, they may seek equality in other things, even things as
preposterous as equality in slavery. Democracy is about freedom and equality alike. Equality,
however, is an insatiable desire of men. For Tocqueville, I think the positive outcomes of freedom
need to more quickly evident in order for people to crave it as they do

Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli
Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well–being in regards to the
state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well–being of the state – they
vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within
their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard
of right: morality" or a "particular moral excellence" (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as
wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation,
prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato
and Machiavelli's accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they
contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists' accounts of virtue deviate
from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political
life. The differences in Plato and Machiavelli's accounts of virtue is evidently that they focus on
different virtues and identify varying virtues as being valuable to political life. Plato discusses four
virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Plato compares wisdom, or knowledge, to the sun
in an attempt to aid us in understanding the Form of the Good which is the definitive entity of
knowledge by saying
"Once one has seen it, however, one must conclude that it is the cause

Compare and Contrast of the Three Faces of Power
Some theorists believe that 'power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it
comes from everywhere... power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name
we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because
power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to
get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes
by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on 'power
over' the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on
structuration theory attempts to integrate basic ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Luke's one–dimensional view of power is centred on this concept and in order to develop
understanding as to how power is achieved and maintained within society, an analyses of decision–
making in the public arena must be made. It also contests that the group that holds and maintains
power can be determined by looking at who succeeds when there is political conflict. (Lukes,
1974:12) It emphasises the importance of the observed behaviour of those in power and analyses the
effects on the wider community when making decisions (Lukes 1974:25) Lukes spends a lot of time
discussing Dahl's theory of power through his own theory. The power held by a specific group may
be either, 'overt' or 'covert' but the triumph of power is at the point is during the decision–making
process and when these decision have been made, especially, those of the controversial nature of
ones centred around the most conflict (Lukes, 1974:13) The one dimensional view of power
proposed by Lukes is the most straightforward of the three dimensions. In a way, it is also the easiest
to observe, as the power structure through decision–making is more translucent and has a lot of clear
definable features.
The two–dimensional view or second face of power discusses the non–decision making and how the
group or individual controls what is put on the political agenda. This form of power is power
through agenda setting. The perspective of the

Essay on John Stuart Mill’s Education
John Stuart Mill's Education
John Stuart Mill's education was intense at all times, but at different stages in his life he learned
different things and in different ways. Though his education was unique by all accounts, it embodied
many virtues that modern educational systems strive to include. These include: close parent
involvement and one–on–one work between students and teachers; exposure to intellectual role
models; emphasis on independent thought, logic, and pursuing curiosities; being held to high
standards for achievement; being free from invidious comparisons to peers; and learning the value
of seeking out peers for intellectual support and stimulation. He also learned, during personal
struggles to understand his ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
From the start his energies were funneled into academic learning, and since he associated studies
with his attention from his father, and since he had no other frame of reference to which to compare
his childhood as he lived it, he reports being reasonably happy and engaged in his early educational
training.
As he got a bit older, Mill's father extended his studies to include political and economic theory and
logic and pushed Mill to think critically, make analytical arguments, and pursue his curiosities and
write on his own. Mill's daily walks with his father, during which he recounted everything he
learned the previous day, reinforced the association between familial relationships and academic
achievement. Though he thought of himself as much his father's subordinate, he was taught the
analytical tools that allowed him to evaluate the things his father taught him as well as the opinions
he himself formed and had to substantiate. Inspired by his love of reading histories, he wrote several
of his own, which practice his father approved of but did not interfere in by asking or insisting on
reading his son's histories. The creation of a private sphere within his education separate from the
part of it that he shared with his father allowed Mill to appropriate learning as his own. By applying
the tools and resources of his training under his father to enjoyable hobbies of his own, he reinforced
his skills

The Importance Of Ideal Theorist Political Realism
whereas, as those from the non–ideal side will immediately disregard them as being foolish and
infeasible. I will operate within Singer's own presuppositions that poverty is simply bad and that
access to basic necessities is an inalienable human right.
In contrast to the normative emphasis of ideal theorist political realism provides a stark contrast.
According to realists, ideas about morality or justice have no place in an international political
system that is dominated by the quest for security and order. States must act in their own self–
interest to ensure their own survival in an anarchic world. There is no world government to protect
them; they must emphasise power over any ethical considerations. As such, realists categorically
deny many of the arguments put forward by Singer. William Galston provides a sharp criticism on
Singer's point on proximity by stating "if I see two children drowning – my own and someone else's
– and I can only save one, does it follow that I must be indifferent as to which one? Conversely, he
correctly identifies that we will always give moral weight to those closest to as us and it is therefore
his conclusions that "it is no accident that we have never seen a society that embraced Singer's
principle, and I can say with utter confidence that we never will." It seems to that any inability to
comply with Singer's prescriptions proves that there is fault with the prescription rather than us.
However, I believe that realism has several

Rousseau And Hobbes And Rousseau On Individual And...
Dissent over thoughts and opinions has been prevalent since society was first created. Rousseau and
Hobbes and their individual and differing social contracts are no exception to this. Each of the
theorists believed their specific social contracts would best provide the solutions to the political
problems they address. Both create complex, sometimes contradicting diagnosis 's of the individual
problem they address. As with most pieces of writing, the setting the author was in when writing it
often has great amounts of influence. This is true with both social contracts and problems arise later
because of this. Rousseau and his concern with inequality and Hobbes and his concern with anarchy
are prevalent not only to their contracts but also open the doors to Charles W. Mills and the
problems he exposes in both social contracts. The time of history someone lives during has ample
influence on the ideas he forms throughout his life. This theory proves evidently true for both
Rousseau and Hobbes. Rousseau was alive for the duration of the mid–1700s. It was during this
time that the social upheavals leading up to the French Revolution were occurring. Rousseau was
witness to substantial amounts of poverty, inequality, and instability. As a result of this, he noted that
people are "good" if they are provided with what they need. One's morality is based on their
circumstances. Rousseau theorized that there are no "good people" and "bad people", instead there
are simply people who

A Political Theorist During The Enlightenment Kant 's...
Kemisa Kassa ID#003638997
As a political theorist during the enlightenment Kant's ideas about using logic and reason to guide
thought. The importance of logic in guiding one's thought to freedom of expression is vital. That
same freedom of expression is especially critical in the ever–changing 21st–century perceptions on
the idea of "freedom". Today the most challenging form of freedoms that is hard to protect is one's
presence on online. Kant's amendment, "Protects the individual right to property that was created
and inspired by original thought and is generated on any online entity", this will protect intellectual
property, the natural/inalienable rights granted to everyone and those who oppose may argue its
relevance might cause an uproar because of finding the truest of true origins of thought.
The proposed amendment by Immanuel Kant is as follows, stating that this amendment "Protects the
individual right to property that is created and inspired by original thought and is so generated on
any online entity" guaranteeing the rights of everyone online to post their original ideas and
creations without fear of getting it stolen. This is important because Kant wants there to be
happiness and reason at all times so now it will be easier to accomplish these goals. During his time,
it was important to act and think based on reason so this will make it easier for those who have ideas
and concepts to contribute through various mediums can comply and fulfill their needs online.

Influence Of Classical Influence On Politics
Classical Influence on Current Policies and Politics
John Locke and Thomas Hobbs were both English political philosophers and natural law theorist.
Both philosophers made an impact on modern politics and shared similar views on the power
residing with society and that the people should have the power to govern the government. In
addition, the two 17th century philosophers shared the similar view that humans are created equal.
However, in contrast their views on the state of nature, human nature and social contract are very
different.
State of Nature The state of nature in political theory is the hypothetical condition of human beings
before or without political association, the concept used in moral and political philosophy, religion,
social contract theories and international law to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives
of people might have been like before societies came into existence (Monroe, 2017). Hobbes had a
negative concept of the state of nature, believing that it represented a war, a threat to the existence of
the individual, every man against every man. Hobbes' philosophy was that we all are all self–
interested in personal gains, we all desire similar things that are limited in society, the state of nature
will be very competitive. Because of the competition, each person poses a threat to the other.
According to Hobbes, where man's life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Wootton, 2010).
Locke has a more pleasant view of the

Adam Smith Unrestrained Greed Analysis
The common depiction of Adam Smith as an advocate for unrestrained greed and little to no
government intervention in markets seems to be accurate only in limited and qualified ways. The
following discussion will attempt to show that Adam Smith does not advocate for unrestrained greed
and that while he generally opposed government intervention into market affairs, he outlined
specific tasks for the government. Adam Smith's work in political philosophy begins with his
Theory of Moral Sentiments. While this work is separate from his famed work on political economy,
The Wealth of Nations, it lays the foundation for the rest of his theories (T, 57). In Theory of Moral
Sentiments, Smith lays out an entire theory of moral nature. Smith notes that we tend to seek the
approval of others, forcing us into the accepted norm of society (T, 58). That said, Smith argues that
we eventually stop seeking the approval of society, and instead begin to seek the higher approval of
a hypothetical disinterested observer, whose standard of judgement is based on our past judgments
of others (T, 58). Thus, with practice, we build up a moral system that improves over time because
the standard by which we judge our acts is raised by observed acts of empathy. According to Adam
Smith, our tendency to admire the rich corrupts the moral sentiments (T, 66–7). This happens in part
because our admiration of the rich leads to the desire to pursue more wealth by means of self–
interest. Unrestrained greed

Realist Argument In Foreign Policy
Nuclear weaponry's entry into international affairs during George Kennan's lifetime added to the
Realist's sense of urgency in promoting well–defined national interests as opposed to internally
competing moral norms. For Realists, morality is no basis for foreign policy because flawed human
nature and the anarchic international environment forces the state to act, first and foremost, on
behalf of its interests. Contrary to Realists, Morality of States theorists and Cosmopolitans argue
that morality is both relevant and paramount in deciding foreign policy because it holds those in
power accountable to protecting universal individual rights. Conceivable apocalyptic catastrophes
due to nuclear weapon use and resource depletion were constant dangers ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Kantian Cosmopolitans tie moral rationality to deliberations by arguing moral principles are derived
from reasoning. As such, Kant concludes that universal morality may be discerned, and rational
beings have value as ends in themselves (Donaldson, 138). This core assumption implicitly
disagrees with Realists by theorizing humanity is capable of ignoring innate animal impulses if they
do in fact exist. Furthermore, Kantian Cosmopolitanism opposes the Realist position that morality
has no basis in foreign policy. This is demonstrated in Kant's belief that states have an "original
right" to self–defense and that international confederation is best suited to "afford mutual protection"
against aggression (Donaldson, 145). Kant's conceived confederation of states, however, is non–
binding and subject to constant renewal, exposing it to the Realist counterargument for Morality of
States theorists' convictions that states are able to punish aggressors. Arguably, the greatest
divergence between Realists and Kantian Cosmopolitans is the latter's belief that states "must act in
accordance with the idea of perpetual peace" regardless of its possibility. To this, Realists likely
argue their position's sole concern

Human Nature Establishes Political Authority
Now that we have an understanding of the three different accounts of the state of nature, it is
important to understand the differing accounts of how human nature establishes political authority.
Hobbes believes that because the state of nature is a constant state of war, the role of government
must be to protect the people to protect people from themselves. Therefore, the purpose of political
authority is to enforce law and order, and that the purpose of government is to control and be
authoritative and should not be responsible for representing the people. Hobbes believes that you
must give up your natural rights for peace. In the social contract man give up their rights to the state,
but the social contract can only be signed among those who are equal as it is a contract established
by the enforcer. Locke has a differing view that the establishment of political authority is to ensure
that men have their property rights protected. Locke believes that the greatest purpose that men have
for society is to be able to use their property, and to do safe while doing so. Therefore, Locke
believes that the most important positive law that society should establish is the right to legislative
power. To be governed under legislative power means that the government has to have the consent
of the people. By having a government that is accountable to the people they represent, it will
protect the people being governed against oppression, a government that has the consent of the
people

Niccolo Machiavelli 's The Prince, A Secularist And...
Modern political theory is defined as an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs that characterize the
thought processes of a group or nation in the present day. Niccoló Machiavelli, born in the late 15th
century, is considered the father of modern political thought and some even consider him the
founder of the concept of 'modernity' itself. Machiavelli's most famous piece of writing, The Prince,
a secularist and realist view of politics, was a dramatic break from previous political thought
anchored in tradition and religion. The notion of power politics is ingrained within the text and is
considered widely the way in which modern politics is conducted. This essay will argue that
Machiavelli is the first modern political thinker based on his ideas and theories of secularism and
power politics. Machiavelli is known as the first modern political thinker because his view of the
state, and the state's relationship with the Church, were revolutionary. Prior to Machiavelli, 15th
Century politics was simply an extension of the Church with the pope as the primary political actor.
However, the Renaissance brought back ancient and classical thought that allowed thinkers like
Machiavelli to flourish. Machiavelli is immersed in the struggling Italian city–state of Florence
where he writes a text with the intention of unifying Italy into a single political entity. He argues the
best approach is a secular one, and in this line of thinking, he effectively defines human nature as
that

Political Philosophy Of Niccolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli, a banished political theorist once said," The first method for estimating the
intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him." Compared to the men around him,
Machiavelli has the most compelling political philosophy. Machiavelli certainly is a leading political
theorist who uses history and straight forwardness to prove his point. The Prince is filled with great
knowledge that has the ability to inspire the reader. Niccolo Machiavelli use of historical analysis,
realist attitude and brazen syntax are the driving forces that make his political philosophy so
compelling.
Machiavelli found it really important to study those that came before him. Machiavelli states, "I
have been unable to find among my possessions anything which I hold so dear or esteem so highly
as that knowledge" It is this knowledge and carefully analysis of history that makes his argument
truly compelling. Theorists before him like aristotle used observation and imagination in order to
develop their political theory's. But observation does not determine political success it is the careful
analysis and emulation of great leaders . Machiavelli proves this when he says , " But as to exercise
for the mind, the prince ought to read history and study the actions of eminent men,...and above all,
do as some eminent men have done in the past,..so that when fortune changes she may find him
prepared to resist her blows." This speaks to the spellbinding nature of Machiavelli's

Political Philosophy And The Role It Plays Today
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT
What is Political Philosophy?
And the Role it Plays Today
Savannah Dye
9/17/2015
"Political philosophy" and "political theory" are versatile, yet relative terms. Ironically, the most
unifying aspect of both definitions is their fluidity. One of the only things that theorists concur on is
the purpose of a political theory, which is to incite change to a certain degree. The intention of
political theorists and political philosophers alike is to unveil the deeper problems in our world, and
to emphasize the importance of contemplation as a catalyst for rectification. George H. Sabine
indirectly defines political philosophy as "a study of the nature and well–being of civic societies..."
Sabine explains ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Second, "it contains statements of what may be roughly called a causal nature, to the effect that one
kind of thing is more likely to happen, or may be easily brought about, than another (Sabine 6)."
This part is emphasizing what the endgame of that particular situation more than likely will be if no
action is taken in a different direction. The third and final part of this basic format that Sabine gives
us "contains statements that something ought to happen or is the right and desirable thing to have
happen (Sabine 6)." This is the normative portion of his explanation, and the most important part of
a theory because it serves as a call to action. The philosopher visualizes a more advantageous
outcome to the situation at hand, and they aim to alter the future with their ideas of a romanticized
society. As far as psychological effects go, Sabine recognizes that passion is intrinsically alluring.
Figuratively speaking, if you eliminate the logical portion of your theory, passion alone acts as an
"effective short–cut (Sabine 8)" allowing one to bypass logic altogether. Rather than a theory, a
philosopher could advocate an ideology which has proven to be just as effective in many cases. Leo
Strauss very specifically distinguishes between "political philosophy" and "political theory." In his
opinion, political theory isn't as prestigious of a term as political philosophy, and shouldn't be held
to as high of a standard. Political philosophy predates political theory,

Weaknesses Of Social Contract Theory
Social Contract theory is the idea that in the beginning people lived in the state of nature with no
government and laws to regulate them. In order to overcome the issues involved in the state of
nature, people entered into agreements to protect themselves and their properties. They did this by
uniting, rescinding certain rights under the state of nature, and pledging themselves to an authority
that will guarantee certain protections. They all agree to live together under those laws and create a
mechanism that enforces the contract and the laws that come with it. Some political theorists, such
as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have differing views as to what the state of nature is and what
should constitute as a social contract. One ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
More precisely, children are just as likely to contract with their mothers as they are with their fathers
for protection. Additionally, given the lack of a modern family structure, it is unlikely that a child
would know the exact identification of their father. Carole Pateman points out that under these
conditions of nature, it would seem unlikely that women would agree to have children. According to
Hobbes, they have the same primary drive for survival and perpetual existence that men do. The
question then lies: why would women put themselves at greater risk by caring for children?
Carole Pateman prompts us that the worrying part of Hobbes's idea of family may not be its
contractual form but its absolutism. While in his political contract we give absolute rule to the
sovereign, such as a monarch, in the family contract we also turn power over to an absolute ruler.
This absolute ruler is the "master" of the family. While Hobbes leaves open the possibility that the
mother could be the master of the household, however, mothers and women are removed from the
discussion of the family once the idea of the master is introduced. Pateman also dismisses Hobbes's
acknowledgement of female sovereigns as simply a logical possibility. She goes even further: "the
sovereign cannot be the mother, given the conjectural history of the origin of the family

The Boundaries Of Consent By Thomas Hobbes And John Locke...

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Victoria Thompson

More from Victoria Thompson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Boundaries Of Consent By Thomas Hobbes And John Locke...