Government Versus Individual Rights In The 17th Century

Both the Declaration of the Rights of Man and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explore the idea of how government enables and preserves its citizen’s rights to pursue the good life. No longer can individuals live outside the borders of a country, in which they would be considered truly free, therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that they are granted full rights and can live as if they were free. Put aptly in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man”. Without the rights warranted in these two documents the good life would be unattainable.

All individuals within the United States do not receive the proper benefits they desire which results on the Government not fully benefiting their needs. The American government supports all citizens, but does not grant individuals their total human rights that they fully deserve. Individuals have the right to be supported by the government especially the one with a low income,troubled families, and struggling individuals. Although the government satisfies the needs of its people to certain extent, it only occurs when the government is involved due to self-interest. The legislative process, interest groups, and congressional powers tend to stop the American individuals from being fully satisfied by the government of the United States.

Human rights seem to be one of the most undervalued rights that people are given. Although not tangible, or even visible, in the end they are one of the most significant aspects of life (Universal 1). They keep us civil. As the

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

My rights as a citizen that I have are to be treated equal to everyone else, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (to live the way that makes me happy). The best government is one that protects those rights and allows me to rebel against them if they try to take those rights away from me. In this essay, I’ll explain which governments allows me the following things above.

Throughout America’s history, we have believed that humans have individual rights that should be protected and supported by the rulers of our country. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights was created to protect these rights, and the Declaration of Independence even proclaims that “all men are created equal”. However, there were hundreds of people scattered throughout the colonies, and then states, in America who did not have these same rights and were not always seen as human, such as African Americans, women, and Native Americans.

When observing the government of this nation, there is one undeniable truth: the government’s primary purpose is for the safety and maintenance of its people. According to Morris I. Leibman in his article “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Law Society”, the demand for equality cannot be converted into a fight for superiority. We must all learn to be equal under the law, and in order for this equality to reach its acme, we must learn to accept the policies that our government sets before us. In fact, as stated by

During the seventeenth century Europe witnessed two prominent forms of government, an absolutist and a limited/constitutional. Both governments were constructed through several key figures that were in control of the countries, some more stable than others. Although these key figures tried to dominate the government under absolute authority their control was still limited. Absolutists monarchies were trying to be established all over the country, unfortunately many of them failed due to various factors. Throughout the seventeenth century Europe rulers have tried to maintain an absolutist monarchy however society still found some holes in their power, which limited the ruler’s control.

Natural rights is the idea that each individual is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is concluded from the Declaration of Independence that these are basic human rights that no one should be denied of. Though, the concept of these rights, and what is meant by them is open to interpretation. Some may say that the idea of liberty should be the focus of government. It is also said that the right to liberty, is the right to own property and to achieve one’s own goals. Everyone should be granted these basic rights at birth as civilians, and as

At the point when a government(put your reference) neglects to ensure those rights it isn't just the right, yet additionally the obligation of the general population to

government calls for political and social equality. The United States is called a free country, but

The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but

There are two type of human rights: those that are intrinsic, ones that we would still hold if there were no structured society or laws (for example, the right to adequate food), and those that are socially and politically constructed, meaning rights that exist because of conversation, agreements, ordinances, and laws (for example, healthcare) (Taylor, 2010). It would be hard to make an argument for health care as an intrinsic right but I would, and will in the next part of this paper, argue for healthcare as a political right. The General Assembly of the United Nations presented this exact argument when it included access to healthcare on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including healthcare as an inalienable right that should be provided to the people (Assembly, 1948). Despite its inclusion on this document though, the United States is among a minority of wealthy nations that do not provide health care to its people. We as citizens of the United States must come to determine what “counts among [us] as just and unjust” (Rawls, 1971, p. 11) and what “is rational for [us] to pursue” (Rawls, 1971, p. 11) as a nation and what we view as rights for our people. Shafer-Landau suggests several constraints of thinking that are important in this

Social justice is a long debated subject that continues to prove controversial and divisive all over the world. Opinions on what constitutes social justice vary on a continuum from more conservative opinions which note individual responsibility to a more liberal stance which promotes a moral responsibility to support social equality (Mapp, 2008). Despite the varying opinions of what establishes social justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as the first step in promoting social justice by outlining the basic rights that should be afforded to humanity (United Nations, n.d.). More specifically, Article 22 of the UDHR states that all people should have access to social security protection that works to provide essential needs, provisions for preserving dignity, and freedom to pursue personal interest (United Nations, n.d.). In spite of the established declaration, social justice remains unavailable for too many people. Worldwide, the lack of social protection leads to 1.4 billion people struggling to meet their essential needs due to lack of access to resources which promote a decent standard of living. Another 100 million fall into poverty due to unforeseen complications (GIPSPSI, 2011). Therefore, there is a crucial need to recognize social protection as a human right in order to guarantee equal access to basic services and equal opportunity to all of humankind.

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.