Monarchies And Monarchies

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

For all of the pride humankind takes in its established government systems, they are flawed. And as for glorious revolutions that change the face of the government or replace one government with another, they are truly and "simply the pitting of power against power, where the issue is freedom for the winners and enslavement of

As King John I grew up with his father as king, he was able to learn how to govern a country, and how he would lead the people when he later became king. As a Child, feud between family members was common. John often fought with his brother, and John’s mother was seen as his father’s prisoner (English Edward). Since there was conflict in John’s life as a child, conflict surfaced later on during his reign against other government officials and countries. Even though John was his father’s favorite son, he was not heir to his father’s throne and it took John many years to become king. John’s older brother Richard was the heir to the

Absolutism is an absolute monarch in which both kings and nobilities help superior power over the rest of the population. Their goals was the control every aspect of society, to rule with their right and ways. French Monarchy was led by King Henry IV, Louis XIII, minister Cardinal Richelieu, and most importantly, Louis XIV. These leaders were all challenged by authority such as nobles during their effort to establish an absolutist regime. Absolutism was looked upon by several nobles and people in society due to all the power being claimed by just a couple of people. King Louis was thrown in this position as age 5 right in the middle of chaotic and messy time. His goal was the centralize government, attain religious unity, and secure power. Therefore, he avoided giving many people rights, he didn’t want anyone to rise above his stature of authority. However, in order to run the country, the King or leader had to deal with many problems. These rulers/kings all had many different obstacles they had to overcome in order to establish this absolute authority. Problems included, the Nobles exercising power to kill the King’s run, large influence of religious minority, and lastly would be cultural/regional differences. Every King and authority involved in creating this royal power contributed in many different aspects to reach past these obstacles put before them.

Each form of government serves well at its beginning. But as does most things in life it will eventually break down over time. Polybius believes the reason monarchies do not work is because of the inheritance through generations. This make it so successors are no longer chosen by excellence of leadership but by birth right. Which means monarchs no longer have an incentive to serve the state but to serve their own selfish needs.

Monarchies have lasted in a society, because of the king taking order of the people. There is a lack of trust between a

Tyranny, Plato defined it as “ the wretchedest form of government”. Aristotle proclaimed that it was “a kind of monarchy that has in view the interest of the monarch only”. People that live under the rule of a tyrant, (A cruel and oppressive leader), have no freedom and are basically slaves to the monarchy that they live under. Citizens are abused by the tyrant in order to scare or force them into submission. This was a terrible form of government that has existed from 2000 years ago and is still active today. Without it, many countries would not be what they are today, and some may not even exist. Take the united states for example. Without the autocracy of King George of Britain and

This system stems from John Locke’s theory on civil society and the extent of legislative power, stating that the civil government’s job is to protect the people’s natural rights, and he believes that the absolute monarchy he lives under does not provide that protection. Locke explains, “…(man) could never be safe nor at rest, nor think themselves in civil society, till the legislature was placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please.” He believes that absolute monarchy places no common authority over all people; thus, by placing power in one person, the entire society deteriorates. Since the monarch can encroach on people's property and wellbeing without fear of punishment, the people lack the protection, comfort, and motivation to contribute to the good of the society. Thus, Locke clarifies that “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it.” This causes the person in power to fear punishment from encroaching on people’s property or wellbeing and protects from the political domination they would be imposing if the law did not apply to them. If the person in power continued to impinge on people’s natural rights, Locke then believed that the people had the right to a revolution against their tyrannous monarch. Locke justifies this, saying “This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is highly guilty of the greatest crime, I think, a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of government bring on a country.” Locke’s basis of natural rights

I believe that if we work on Thomas Paine's ideals, countries today can fix problems in their nation. Nations could uncorrupt their governments and learn to make their countries a better place to live in. Like it says in Common Sense, a country that is run with a monarch will not last as long as a country run by a democracy because the people in the end will have to ultimate say of what goes on in their country.

Occasionally celebrated with ceremonial tributes to an earlier period of history, today’s constitutional monarchies sometimes mark such affairs with the pomp and circumstance associated with an altogether different era.

(Pros and Cons of Monarchy) What this quote proves, is that to overthrow a monarchy, you have to overthrow one person, who has supreme authority, and to overthrow a democracy, you have to overthrow multiple people, each with the same amount of power, making it harder to overthrow them. The citizens of the country, will also probably help the democratic more than the monarch. The people will like the ruler more, because they got to choose their leader. “Critics of monarchies argue that this type of government only gives control of the whole nation under selected individuals, leaving the people's voice, whatsoever.

Is Absolutism a better form of government than a Representative Democracy? It most definitely is! Absolutism has existed for hundreds of thousands of years for a reason; This is because Absolutism runs more fluidly, Most absolute rulers are good leaders and can help make a society thrive, and votes of a representative democracy can be tampered with give unjust rulers. Many people believe that absolutism helps a political system run more efficiently, this meaning with one ruler things will get done because there is no one arguing with that ruler's power.

Without a government to provide a constant to the chaos that is everyday life, there is no way that we would be as successful of a country as we have been. Without it, people would run around doing all these bad things, because there were no laws to stop them from doing them. The government also ensures the protection of the people by providing a military to do so. Some people may argue for the sake of the good in people, but James Maddison said that government is just a reflection of human nature, which means that because we are only humans, and not angels, we need the

Throughout Common Sense, Thomas Paine shows that he is against Monarchical government, and he says that the government type itself is not a reasonable means of ruling a nation. To support this, he sheds light on several reasons in which a monarchy is a bad choice for government. Paine says that all the power is unbalanced and vested in the hands of a single person, which most of the time leads to the King of the nation using the powers he has, against his people, for the benefit of himself, and those around him. Paine also says that to have hereditary succession of a monarch is complete nonsense. Paine uses his reason to support this case by showing that maybe a nation is lucky and has a well fit ruler as a King, but who is to say the King’s successor will be best fit for the position of King or Queen of a country. The notion that one ruler is fair and just, does NOT guarantee that the successor will be as just or as fair.

Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they