Monarchy vs Republic

the aim of getting a Constitutional Republic is to put limits on the “tyranny of the bulk.” It protects the unalienable rights of individuals from an overwhelming government. Alexis Delaware author wrote, “If, on the opposite hand, a legislative power may be therefore implanted on represent the bulk while not essentially being the slave of its passions, associate govt therefore on retain a

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).

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.

To stabilize the security, historical contexts are always involved to define a large and small society, where the majority are probably gonna use their powers in the small one. However the power must be independent of the majority, otherwise it cannot protect and contain the majority. This way to solve the problem that probably will not work prevailed in all the governments with hereditary and self-appointed representatives. Ruling by these “methods” where with a single blow everything can finish it up in more problems, makes Madison avoid at any cost the term “tyrant”. In any case, the idea is that especially in republics where freedom interested the majority, citizens maybe can wish to call for the monarchy because of stability and security that a strong man can bring to the

Throughout the centuries, countries had always been ruled by a monarch, or something that was similar. The civilizations that attempted democracy or republicanism would

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.

One example that proves this idea is in document eight. In this document President Roosevelt is looked at as being a king, meaning he is gaining too much power. The New Deal was created so that it could improve the conditions during the Great Depression, but in some cases, it gave the President, and the rest of the government, way too much power. For example: The Emergency Relief bill gave the federal government 4,880,000,000, and allowed the president to spend it in anyway that he liked. Also, the government got into the public’s business ( by helping them ), by making relief payments, serving school lunches, and running a program providing pensions. It was all too much. They were getting too powerful, and some were afraid that soon enough, America would turn into a monarchy. The Government was getting too involved in the lives of everyday people, and had too much power. This is what goes on in a Monarchy. The King and Queen can do whatever they want to their people, and nobody can do anything about it. People feared if this continued, we’d end up just like Britain, the country we were fighting for, for having a monarchy and being too powerful. They controlled the United States, and now they United States are starting to control their own people. After all, once someone gets a taste of power, they do whatever they can to get some more, and too much power can lead to

Let’s see what is Monarchy? It is a king or queen who gets all the powers of authority from inheritance and power stays in the same family, usually the bloodline from father to son. In Ancient Greeks, there weren’t too many monarchies, but there was some present and even Athens went under the monarchy at the end of the classical period which ended with the death of Alexander the Great. His father Phillip II of Macedon who became king after the deaths of his two brothers conquered Athens after the Peloponnesian war and ended democracy in the great city of Athens. (Wasson, 2014)

Monarchy A monarchy is a form of government in which the ruling power is in the hands of a single person. Monarchy comes from the Greek terms monos and arkhein. It is a form of in which the people are led by a king, usually with the help of a council of advisors. He takes power legally and his sovereignty hereditary. The ruler is empowered to remain in power for life. One citystate whose government was a monarchy was the city-state of Corinth. Aristocracy

Also if there is a smooth running society that has no political oppression or any political warfare there would be no reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. There would have to be a reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. They would have to either be mentally ill or stressing from either political warfare or oppression. For a monarch to abuse their powers they would most likely be a valid reason why. Monarchy has worked for thousands of years and yes there have been many monarchs that go down into history as bad monarchs, but that's just another reason why people study history so that we don’t make the same mistakes as we did in the past.

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.

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.

Government falls into two categories; monarchy or a republic. A monarchy is a form of government that is always headed by a

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its