The Theories Of Origin Of State Through Comparison

Mencius once again underscores the people’s role in the heavenly mandate and declares their right to either abide by or revolt against a ruler. Mencius claims that “rulers only possessed the Heavenly Mandate to rule so long as they retained the hearts of the people . . . For Mencius, the human heart was ‘endowed with the ability to judge between right and wrong’ and constituted ‘a bridge linking man with Heaven’” (Glanville 331). Mencius’s belief in the ability of the heart to determine right or wrong gives the common people authority and power to identify whether a ruler is worthy of the mandate and the favor of the heavens. Consequently, it is imperative that the ruler retains the people’s support as negative sentiments can lead to dissent and organized revolt amongst the people. This emphasis on the intimate and powerful link between the people and the heavens is translated in Mencius’s concept of the “ultimate supremacy of the people.” Mencius declares that “The people are of supreme importance; the altars to the gods of earth and grain come next; last comes the ruler” (Glanville 332). Mencius prioritizes the

When looking into the ideas of political theorists it is important to the use of political concepts that may play an important role in what the theorists are suggesting and also how they may affect the relationship between to state and the individuals living within a state. The concepts that will be looked at within this essay are: power, authority and also accountability.

The old Greek and Roman realms are two cases of where insubordinate activities now give a premise to advanced law. From the Greeks, we have come to know the narrative of Socrates by Plato, and the Roman age was the season of St. Perpetua, an early Christian lady. The destiny of those people is comparable – a capital punishment passed on by the general public they lived in. In spite of the fact that the closure of their lives is comparable, the distinctions that lie in the reasoning of their demise are more unpredictable, with key variables influencing their individual pre-predetermined future. In this, we will see, these elements influence their connections to the states and time periods in which they existed.

It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

Thesis: Rulers during the period from 1450 to 1750 viewed themselves ruling with God’s name and have great power and diverse methods to rule their lands, and they are expected to do everything for their people and have great diplomatic policies.

Throughout the pass of time, human history has seen different forms of governments, from the tribal leader, to the Roman Republic, to the absolutist monarchies of Europe. Yet, few of them had centered their main ideals in freedom and sovereignty. Actually, sovereignty is a fairly recent term, grasped among Europeans when they finally decided to stop intervening so much in each other’s affairs. For many centuries, monarchies, especially those with an absolute ruler, had been the top choice for European governments, and, as it should have been expected, they had brought the same governing style to the American colonies. Thus, it was not a surprise to observe European governments where an absolute leader had control over everything and everyone,

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.

Amid the ancient and medieval age, we see that a leader or a group played the important role as the leader of a chain. When comparing and contrasting the way a king’s or group’s role is played in the ancient age and medieval age, we find differences, particularly when it comes to how they rule the kingdom. But we also find similarities in the way they treated their community and the power they hold. Thus, the king or group was considered the most important voice that brought about change in laws, social order, and government.

Many English monarchs believed in the divine right to rule. This right was given to them by God, therefore they believed that no one could take their crown or it would destroy the rightful line of succession. However, this was not always the case and some kings such as Richard II had their crown forced from them. If a king believed in the divine right he often had a close relationship with God. In William Shakespeare’s comedies, the divine right to rule a kingdom is present in the ways in which Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V are come to rule England. Both Richard II and Henry V were powerful rulers, whose ruling was heavily dictated by their divine right to rule and their relationship with God. Through exploring the King’s relationship to God in Shakespeare’s tragedies Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V, one can see that Henry V is the ideal Christian King.

The question that then must be asked is what caused people, rulers, philosophers and scholars to begin to think about power and rule in terms of state and sovereignty? Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been regarded and accepted as the basic unit of international politics and the concept of the sovereignty of states was formally recognised. But the ideas of state and sovereignty had been slowly emerging in Europe in the centuries preceding 1648. The concept of the state emerged out of the collapse of the feudal system (Nossal

For a lot of years Gods people were ruled by Judges; however, they looked out there across the borders and saw people being ruled by kings and they wanted a king, too. God did not favor them having a king, but they thought they would fair better if they just had a king. So God permitted them to have one.

2. In democracy three state powers(in most cases) exist as a checks and balances system, these being the judicial, executive and legislative as it was enunciated in Montesquieu ’s Of the Spirit of law. And they are independent, complementary and with no relation of subordination. Whereas in an absolute monarchy, the

Kings and rulers started to emerge as soon as people moved away from living in tribes. This was the case with the Jews when they have decided to unite under one ruler. However, long before them the first empire was established in Mesopotamia by Sargon of Akkad in 2334 BCE (Kelly, 2011). The essay will compare kingship in three geographically and chronologically different societies. They are the following: Babylonians during Hammurabi’s reign (1792-1750 BCE), Neo-Assyrians (934-610 BCE), and the Jews (1000 BCE). In order to avoid historical distortions, primary sources from those time periods will be used. These three communities have influenced each other in different fields. Therefore, we can see similarities in their ruling systems.

The just exercise of political power is conceived of as resting upon constitutional principles. Constitutional principles are a position from which we operate justly. However, what constitutes as just? Throughout history political power derived from many historical foundations that were deemed just based on the society that upheld those principles. This notion is evident throughout the development of constitutional doctrines in Greek democracy, Aristotle’s political theory, Roman Republicanism, and English Constitutionalism.

In ancient times, it was said that a ruler should behave according to the standards and regulations set forth by the word of God. There was an absolute standard of justice that people had to follow. The ruler or sovereign was taught to act morally in order to be successful and gain spiritual happiness; morality and politics were unified, religion played an important role in the decision making. A ruler had to act accordingly based on the standards and moral ideas of ancient civilizations and the government, this meant, recognizing that there was an absolute right and an absolute wrong. The ruler and society as a whole, in ancient times, were preoccupied with their afterlife and wanting to achieve a better spiritual life by acting