I believe that monarchies do not have a suitable place in the world. Some reasoning behind this is the fact that there is no freedom, there is a lot of room for error, and that the citizens have no freedom or power. My main reason as to why I think that monarchies are a bad decision is because monarchies overshadow their citizens. A reason as to why my opinion is correct is the fact that the citizens have no freedom. An example to back this up is how the citizens of a monarchy have no political power. They don't have a chance to express their opinions on society. Also, there is no freedom of speech. Citizens must keep their thoughts and feelings to themselves, or else they could be severely punished. Furthermore, citizens are also controlled.
In “Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, written by Jean Domat, Domat argues that the absolute monarchy portrayed by King Louis XIV of France was created in the best interest of France. Domat’s audience in this document seems to be the middle class as well as the lower classes of France since Domat’s main goal of this paper is to justify the actions and amount of power held by the upper class and the king in an 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.
Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested on the divine rulers shoulders, should he fail, the nation will crumble. This kind of government could be toppled very easily, and a lack of a stable system set up in place should the monarch die would mean chaos would run rampant throughout the nation.
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).
In cases where both the subjects and the monarch are happy with shared views on absolute ruling properly, the ruler should first unify his people to have the same goals as him which is to help their country be successful powerfully and financially. If the absolute monarch uses his power to his advantage, then the the subjects would not share the same view as their monarch, because they are living in poverty and unfair conditions, whereas the king is living in luxury and enjoying all the food they please. The subjects' view depend greatly on how they live their life, they might want everyone to live equally with enough food and money to get by, and to get rid of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. The rulers and the subjects have one ideal in common which is to help their country expand and prosper. Both the ruler and the subjects' views are so different since they are leading such contrasting lives, but a common ground they have is their country. They want their country to be great and powerful and they both hold much pride in living and calling it their
Monarchs sat on top of all other Social Classes, monarchs had absolute power over the land and made all of the political and economic decisions. Nobility had the most power after the monarchs. Dukes were the rulers of a province. A baron was noble to the king and people on his land. Knights typically served as a holder of land. Freemen were poor farmers who owned small pieces of land. Serfs were the lowest of social classes and had no political power nor could they own any property.
The king and queen are in charge of the absolute Monarchy and have all the power. The king and queen are also in charge of the constitutional Monarchy but have no power. The absolute Monarchy became in charge by inheriting the throne .The constitutional Monarchy became in charge by inheriting the frame. The absolute Monarchy remained in charge until they die. The constitutional Monarchy remain in charge until they quit,die,or lose the election. No, the laws are not made and enforced in the absolute Monarchy because people aren’t fair. The constitutional Monarchy’s laws are made and enforced because people are all treated equally. In the absolute Monarchy no, not all people are treated equally because 1 person does anything and everything.
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
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.
The pros and cons are for democracy i know that it would be a better choice because the democracy has safe rules that can’t hurt anyone. Also we have someone to governor our country and it is safe but in the monarchy they don’t have good rules and people can kill anytime they want there. So that is why you wouldn’t want to go there. I would at least try to live in the democracy because it is a better place. So i know to believe that if you live in democracy and you know it is a safe place. But if you live in monarchy you need to come here but it is a choice of where people want to live in the united
Religious Views - James had a controversial religious policy; his attempt to grant freedom of religion to non-Anglicans by suspending acts of Parliament by royal decree was not well received. Mary considered such action illegal, and her chaplain expressed this view in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, on her behalf.
The U.S. would never workout if it was a monarchy mostly because we are the country that we come for freedom that citizens want more than what people want for them. Our mother country, Great Britain, is doing fine right now, but being in a monarchy such as them it would not change at all considering your making the same decisions as your ancestors. Which the country would like a change and other people might have better ideas on how to run the country better. More ideas and more money ideas because in reality the world runs around with money. The Declaration of Independence saved us from becoming a monarchy and having the same traditional things and fights for the same thing. Not all bad come from monarchies though. There come good in
Each type of government holds different views as to the role the leaders and citizens should perform in their country .Different types of government include, oligarchy where the government is run by the best leaders, Tyranny, where they believe those in power should have complete control over its people. In the United States of America, we believe in democracy, rule by the majority. The main problem with our type of government is maintaining it. Our government and its citizens have lost sight of their roles and responsibilities, in government.
The world is always changing, people, ideas, and new rules. The way people think and what they want in life change as they age and as new progress is made. Therefor, government should be changed when its ideals no longer aline with that of the peoples. The right of the government to rule over people should come from the people's approval. If people do not agree with their government they have the right to change their government. This right has changed history all over the world. Without this right the power of the government may be in the hands of a single ruler or monarch who has no interest in their people's wants or needs, and when this power falls into the wrong hands the people of a country have the right to take this power away and end the trynary in their country and give power to a more well suited 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.