Marquis De Condorcet

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

First, society grows; a government becomes needed, and in turn laws. Next, because of growth and the inability to gather the people all together, elections become needed. He describes these simple concepts as “the best balance between government and society” (Paine, n.pag.). After clearly explaining to the people his ideas, he uses his concepts to discredit the “monarchial and aristocratic tyranny” (Paine, n.pag.) in the English Constitution. He further examines the lack of appropriate checks and balances, and charges it as unable to “be the gift of a wise people” (Paine, n.pag.). In this section, Paine successfully illustrates an expectation of appropriate government, in a basic construction that puts organization to the public’s desires.

Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette, Marquis de La Fayette, a wealthy French nobleman, played a quietly prominent role in America’s struggle for independence from the British. La Fayette’s unwavering dedication to the pursuit of liberty, his skill as military officer, his ability to secure vital resources, and his impressive connections to the French Royal family and other key players of this era made him an invaluable asset in the American Revolution, and a significant piece of the French Revolution.

Humans cannot always be expected to follow their conscience completely; if they did, they would be perfect. Perfection is, in my opinion, contrary to the basic characteristics of humanity. Paine also asserts that “the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants” that humanity must rely on others, such as those within the necessary evil of government, to accomplish goals (1). These new insights helped me realize the link between the ‘big’ ideas of government and revolution and individual human nature, deepening my understanding and appreciation of Common

DeTocqueville noticed three significant benefits of democracy while observing it first hand in America. Those benefits are public spirit, a notion of rights, and respect for the law. Keeping these results of democracy in mind, while reading Thoreau’s Walden a reader will wonder whether or not the author is comfortable with the notion of living in a democratic government. To answer this question, it is useful to assess DeTocqueville’s benefits of democracy and compare them with the principles found in Walden.

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, Lafayette for short, was a French soldier who was involved with many wars, including but not limited to the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution. He was a strong, powerful, smart warrior and was not afraid in the face of battle. He fought long and hard for freedom, and helped France and America win their independence.

The general understanding of democracy is that it is a state of leadership where citizens of a country participate equally either directly or by representative individuals in the establishment of laws, which run the society. However, like many other forms of leadership, democracy has its cons and may not give the citizens the necessary freedoms that they think they have. Different philosophers have different insights on democracy in terms of concepts such as liberty, which they embraced. This paper will look at Benjamin Barber and Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of democracy contrasting their definition in terms of citizenship, obligation, rights and duties of each individual in the society declaring whose idea of democracy creates a compelling vision (Terchek & Conte, 2001).

With its roots retreating back to the 13th century, the Enlightenment has been a fundamental period in history that has influenced many different contemporary ideologies we see today. There were multiple thinkers, referred to sometimes as “schoolmen” or even “doctors”, during this time that played important roles in creating a society based on human reason and insight. Many of their ideas and concepts help construct the aspects of modern systems of societal government, one of the most evident being Democracy. To this day, we take appreciation to the connections manifested between the Enlightenment and Democracy. Both Democracy and the Enlightenment believe in:

Considers democracy primarily as a process of expressing one’s preferences and demands, and registering them in a vote (Young 1995, p. 60). Moreover, decisions are formed based on what will serve the greatest number of people. Similarly, interest groups or individuals may align themselves to the more popular decisions but ideally will serve their own interest. This approach results in citizens never having to think of or understand another’s values.

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

The very foundation of our domestic and international democracy is founded upon the basis of early Athenian politics. Ancient Greeks created the very idea of democracy, which today seems so simple but at this time, a complex and entirely new idea. They created the idea of citizenship, pathing the way to for the representative democratic style of government that is practiced worldwide. At this time, their ideas were not inherited by different cultures but by merely the ideas of philosophers. Greek philosophers embark on a quest for “a good life” and the best political constitution to accompany it. Although the main philosophers we’ve discussed have similar yet different ideas on how to live a happy and fulfilling life, in turn, it has

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Moreover, instating the right to choose also facilitates the incentive for people to speak out against an unruly leader. When a large mass of civilians disagrees or is concerned with a party’s implementation of policies, they can extract their title from them. Just because a party is elected, does not mean that they will remain in power for the entire duration originally allotted to them. The presence of foreseeable change is crucial to a societies degree of satisfaction associated with their current governmental system. Alteration gives democracy the upper hand. For example, in Spain in 1982, when Prime Minister Leopolodo Calvo Sotelo completely terminated the party that supported what the people wanted, the people in office forcibly made him resign.