Modern Political Philosophy and the U.S. GovernmentModern Political Philosophy and the U.S. GovernmentModern Political Philosophy and the U.S. GovernmentWhere did our government system today come from? One may ask this question and discover that the rise of the current political system is derived from five-hundred years of Modern Political Philosophy. Political Thought is known as the nature and purpose of human association to discover how and why we are structured in this current democratic system. Political Thought philosophers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke wrote ideas of human life and by studying the great thinkers political thoughts and liberties, helps us get a better understanding of how we are formed as one with our government.
One more thing to add: we don’t want our current government to create a state of anarchy as has been done before. In our current nation the only way to manage citizens’ freedom is by creating a state of sovereignty. Why do we want to do this? Well, there is no single law of nature that dictates what is or isn’t in society. All individuals and groups can create and form a state of free and sovereign. But there are also individual, collective governments (think of them in this way: they are the institutions of government). There are other principles of government we may have just as well not take into account. One of the more famous of these principles is the right to bear arms. In 1859, Pope Francis said in Pope Francis’ own name in public, “The people of the world are free to carry arms. Every man that wishes to do so must do so.” We could argue that the right to bear arms is an essential part of all a government has to offer including, but not limited to, state and private rights to disarm. To some extent, then, this right is in play and as such should be the foundation of all a government. Whether the right to bear arms is actually an essential part of a government is an issue of sovereignty. But if a government can make its government possible without the right to carry such a weapon, even if the government is not under the direct control of its citizens, then that also means that the government can have no control over it. You can have as much control over the government as you want with the right to bear arms – or you could have no control over it with the right to bear arms. This is what is happening. What is happening is the government will not be in charge of its own, independent and ultimately democratic system. And this is what I hope is happening in the United States and throughout the world. The United States (and the world as a whole) will do much to protect our people and the people of the United States. We have, however, also been warned that the only way to get our government to protect our people and the people of the United States would be to get rid of its own Constitution and its mandates. Our Constitution has been interpreted by our government through an authoritarian framework. It is now in force as if the government is in charge and has never given full authority to its elected representatives and it’s already out of control. The American people in particular have had their constitutional right to resist the government it presides over (i.e., the Constitution). That is how our government has been interpreted and administered that’s the reason democracy can be achieved through that mechanism and not through the government itself by any means whatsoever from the state (a rule that was clearly articulated by the Constitutional Convention). Now, if you were to go back to your parents or to your grandparents your parents or grandparents gave you the responsibility to decide at all times whether or not to go on a voluntary or voluntary basis. And they gave it to you, they gave you a very clear sense of, how do you govern yourself and whether – and
[Reference]
K. M. H. Wright, “The Politics of Justice”, New Scientist, Feb 18, 1990, pages 1-9. Reprinted with permission.
[Reference]
K. M. H. Wright, “The Politics of Justice”, New Scientist, Feb 18, 1990, pages 1-9. Reprinted with permission.
[Reference]
K. M. H. Wright, “The Politics of Justice”, New Scientist, Feb 18, 1990, pages 1-9. Reprinted with permission.
Machiavelli, an aristocratic political philosopher of the fifteenth century, used a critical methodology to conduct his work which reflects our current government system. Machiavellis methodology consisted of Instrumental Rationality and Realism verses Normative Thinking. His methodology was expressed through his work of The Prince, written to teach a good dictatorship to the ruler of Florence, Italy, Lorenzo Madeci. Instrumental Rationality consisted of a formula using factors “x” and “y”. Basically, if you want something in life, or to have a good government in this sense, one must do “x” in order to reach their goal, “y”. The methodology of Realism verses Normative Thinking focuses on the aspect that Machiavelli is a realist and against the ideas of Normative Thinkers. Normative Thinkers view government based on norms and values but only preach what should or ought to be done and continually think with out any prospects. Through his work, Machiavelli reaches a point of a push for democracy and interjects a republic because he views this as the best form of government, consequently what America has today. Machiavelli believes in checks throughout the republic because it creates stability since many have inherent flaws, as well as a good military service because there are soldiers who want to fight and stand up for their country. Machiavellis thoughts reflect of what our government structure is today.
A second political philosopher and the greatest social contract thinker in philosophy, Thomas Hobbs, based his thoughts upon fear. We must live in fear and always be on edge to any surprise in life. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, does not have any reflection on todays American government system because Hobbess preference of government is a totalitarian government, which we are far from. Hobbess methodologies consist of Deductive Reasoning, Philosophy of the whole, and Social Contract Theory. Hobbes is a deductive thinker, which is the use of logic of a theory to generate propositions that can be tested, to the point where he believes his extensive formula starting from body and matter will reach a totalitarian government. The aspect of Philosophy of the whole comes from his starting point of the extensive formula because if you want to understand the whole (state) then you must understand the components first (citizens) and in order to accomplish that one must understand humans and body. Hobbes keys in to form a government by social contract theory, which derives from the agreement among individuals to form a government. Hobbes gives a pessimistic view of human nature without a government; he believes the following: humans are selfish animals constantly at war with one another, our lives are short, brutish, and nasty, and fear of a violent death is the principle motive which causes the people to create a state due to the fact that we kill each other because we have no other choice in human nature. Our American government today does not reflect in any way the view of Hobbes because with a totalitarian government we would have absolutely no choice or say in how we live.
Although Machiavelli and Hobbes do not relate clearly enough to our current U.S. government, a third political philosopher, John Locke, contributed an enormous amount of thoughts which reflect our American system. John Locke is on the opposite side of Hobbes whereas Locke believes in limited government to create peace and stability for all citizens. Limited government is enforced by natural laws, which are given by God and thought of by using reasoning capabilities. Even though God can not make us follow natural law today, we, as citizens, were created to enforce these laws which in some cases may create society ills, violations of natural laws creating extra suffering that humans have to deal with. From these natural laws created by God, we have natural rights, important moral claims in hearing individuals which promotes the protection of certain values. Examples of natural rights which we use today are: freedom of religion and freedom of speech which are in our Bill of Rights. Due to our reasoning capabilities we are able to work with one another