Summary Of John Stuart Mill's Considerations On Representative Government

In Andrew Sullivan’s essay, “America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny,” he expresses his beliefs that our government is drifting away from the original goals that were embedded for a structural government. Now a days, we are leading towards a government that is construct with individuals in power have wealth while the common people still dwell with less. Sullivan clarifies his argument by introducing the idea that our government is not a democracy, it is more closely similar to an oligarchy. Due to the fact that our democracy is economically unequal, it is coming close to being destroyed by our past and by the rich who can purchase political influences. As common people in society, our voice is simply being diminished due to the fact that

An essential part of every nation lies in the structure of its government. There are many types of political systems such as dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies and specifically what this essay is concerned about: democracies. The United States’ presidential system and Great Britain’s parliamentary system have both adopted a democratic type of government. Despite bearing some minor similarities, the differences between the United States presidential system and Great Britain’s parliamentary system are pronounced.

“Democracy, like liberty or science or progress, is a word with which we are all so familiar tht we rarely take the trouble to ask what we mean by it.”

Thomas Paine has constructed a highly organized criticism of Monarchy and hereditary succession that begins with questioning the very foundation of monarchies and progresses to an explanation of why remaining tied to England would be hurting America politically and economically. He appeals the reader’s logic, starting with the origin of government. Paine argues that fundamentally, a monarchy is ineffective because appointing a man as the king is making the assumption that he is able to make better decisions than the citizens collectively; he needs to be very informed about the public and make involved decisions even though the king is at the disadvantage of being isolated from the common man. The public and the king are supposed to be interrelated and cooperative with information going back and forth between the two, but instead, it creates a dichotomy; the government is very flawed, not only in execution but also is conception. By starting with the very foundation of government, his argument is compelling already. Instead of arguing about the king specifically, he is addressing a larger issue that people cannot ignore. His next unique point is that no kingdom can be justified or

Distrust and dissatisfaction with the government has always been a common sentiment in modern political life. Every Congress and president throughout history has had their fair share of critics and detractors. This has held true in the past and will continue to hold true for the remainder of our democracy. An underlying distrust of government has been a constant in American politics since the country’s birth. This sentiment can be traced back to a uniquely strong emphasis on personal liberty, coupled with the revolutionary fervor with which the nation was founded. Latent anti authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of the American experience. The marked increase in cynicism over the last few decades is a separate phenomenon, however.

This paper will evaluate the health of U.S. democracy by focusing on the on a key element that makes for a healthy democracy: effective representation. By effective representation I refer to communication between both representatives and constituents, through policy enactments and elections, respectively, to serve the people and the interest of the country as a whole. Whether the U.S. is living up to this standard can be evaluated through multiple avenues, in this paper I will only evaluate the health of democratic representation in the U.S. by examining the competence of the public (voters). Numerous scholars and researchers have cast doubt upon how well democracy in the U.S. functions in the United States. Before examining the deficiencies of the public, it must be noted that while no governmental system is perfect by any means, anarchism as an alternative to government is not a practical solution (Dahl, Chapter 3, pp. 50-51).

The public trust in government has declined over the years, and now the people think they can do little to influence the government actions. According to the book We the people by Benjamin Ginsberg, in 2013 only 19 percent of americans reported trusting the government with their decisions in Washington. On the contrary, compare to 1960s and 1970s americans had a lot of more respect and trust for the american government due to the fact that the government did what was best for the people. But now, the trust that his great nation once had has been declining in a

Americans do not have the best record on participating in voting for elections or public policies. As a result, many public policy are change in the government. In addition, American do not have high political efficacy, which is a “citizens’ feelings of effectiveness in political affairs” (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 516). They do not trust their government to change if they would to vote. Thus, many American will not vote as they feel that their vote will not matter in the government. The low level of voter participation causes for policy to be change or renew, in which they citizen may not like, yet as they did not vote to keep in place or the same. Many policies are change to ideas that American do not like in their government. In all, even if the level of participation were to increase, there will still be an outcome of

During Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, it was found that he was one of the most intelligent and talented presidents that the United States of America has encountered (Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia., 2017). He was known as the great political philosopher, and he believed that the power of the government should be held by the people of the United States. In fact, It was actually a transformation involving America’s political culture that brought about what is called the Jeffersonian Democracy (Schultz, K.M., 2013). This democracy was a new way of bringing the political arena to the people in a more personal way. Jefferson was very concerned that having a powerful government could take away the citizens opportunities to free

In the political world, it is often debated whether the United States is a democracy or a republic. The reason it is often confused is because this country was designed to be a republic, is called a democracy, but actually contains a little of both. To differentiate, there are two types of democracy, direct and representative. According to Madison, a direct democracy is where a “small number of people assemble and administer government themselves”, while a representative democracy is where a small group of people are elected to rule government for the rest. On the other hand, a republic is where representatives, who are chosen both directly or indirectly, rule over the rest (Dahl, 160). Even though the concepts of democracy and republic are used interchangeably, they do have similarities and differences that can be observed.

America is a shining beacon of democratic hope. Its light casts an eminent reminder upon its complex history. King George III’s reign fell short of the (virtual) representation we needed. Breaking free from the British grips of tyranny that once held us near, the colonists boasted a new form of government: a republic.

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

“Thus politics, under democracy, resolves itself into impossible alternatives[:] . . . the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” Mencken remarks that “what democracy needs most of all is a party that will separate the good that is in it theoretically from the evils that beset it practically, and then try to erect that good into a workable system.” That is, what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.” Mencken concludes, “It [democracy] produces, true enough, occasional libertarians, just as despotism produces occasional regicides, but it treats them in the same drum-head way. It will never have a party of them until it invents and installs a genuine aristocracy, to breed them

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

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