The Putney Debates of 1647

“I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community” (Document F).

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

By decision making by representatives of the people, rather than direct decision making by the people themselves. These elite representatives would be expected to use their prudence and wisdom to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the masses. (pg. 7)

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

Still Ireton spoke for the grandees which did include Cromwell and “insisted that the franchise should be restricted to those with a permanent fixed interest in the kingdom” as Seel 2 says, and that the vote should go to those who possessed property or there would otherwise be a “disturbance to a good constitution of the kingdom”. This was seen as important because the views of the religious radicals made settlements more difficult and furthermore increased the tension of division among those in the army and in parliament.

One basis of political democracy in this period was the challenge to property qualifications for voting. It began in the American Revolution but culminated in the early nineteenth century. After the Revolution, no new state required property ownership to vote, and in older states, constitutional conventions in the 1820s and 1830s abolished property qualifications, partly because the growing number of wage earners who did not own much property demanded the vote. In the South, however, where large slave owners dominated politics and distrusted mass democracy, property requirements were eliminated only gradually and disappeared quite late, by 1860. The personal independence required of the citizen was henceforth located not in owning property but in owning one’s self, a reflection of this period’s individualism.

In colonial times the democracy had a lot of things that were still a work in progress. Many features of the democracy were not very democratic. One feature that was a work in progress was citizen participation. In Document 2, Voting Qualifications, it shows what race the colonists had to be and how much land they had to own just so they were able to vote. In New Hampshire only a Christian white man who owned land that was valued at 50 pounds could vote. Many of the thirteen states had regulations like

X “[...]a pure Democracy[...] can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party[…]”. Madison argues that a Democratic government will always comply with the majority rule and therefore the minority will always be unrepresented. To most elites Shays Rebellion showed that too much democratic liberty amongst the lower classes had the potential to threaten private property. They were afraid that the state governments were being dominated by the lower class that would institute bad policies such as the debt forgiveness.

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)

The purpose of this paper is intended to summarize my views on what has influenced my understanding of politics and government prior to taking this class, and how my understanding is now since completing this course.

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

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.

‘The Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning about the order of justice, the order and character of just men and just city/states. The Republic is considered as the best known work of Plato and is considered one of the world’s most influential works of politics, history and philosophy. In this Socratic dialogue, Socrates discusses about the notions of justice and whether the just man is very happy when compared with his unjust, Athenian and foreign counterparts. Socrates considers the various facets of the existing regimes and proposes a series of hypothetical cities that are entirely different from his considerations. Such heated discussions result in the culmination of discussing kallipolis, a hypothetical city-state that was ruled by a philosopher king. In this paper, we are going to consider Socrates arguments about democracy by examining whether the concept of democracy always remains inconsistent with philosophical goals.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone