Category: American government

Democracy is a system of government. All qualified individuals or members in the country have the opportunity to vote directly on the issues or to send someone to choose to make these decisions on their behalf. This is a government structure, where the government comes from the people, not from the army or the country.

Although this is an option generally associated with the United States, the Declaration of Independence has no record of this term. America’s founding fathers were genuinely concerned with the idea of u200bu200ba democratic government. James Madison mentioned in a federalist document that this form of government can lead to chaos, instability and injustice. They worry that a popular government will eventually die, because this happens more often than everyone else in the world. What history does not always remember is that the Roman Empire had a functioning democracy in the early days of its existence. To this day, you can even visit the forum, where you can hold your meetings and vote. Even Vladimir Lenin believed that democracy was the goal of communism, using dictators to control the proletariat until this status was possible. Many people now believe that democracy is the best form of government available today because it gives everyone a voice.

These are the advantages and disadvantages of the system to be considered. List of democratic advantages:

Democracy gives people the opportunity to participate in their government personally. Since the government of a democratic country is under the control of the people and their voices, everyone should decide their own destiny. People can choose to vote in any way that morality determines. If they think this is the best way to express their opinions, some people can even give voters the option not to vote. Every vote is an opportunity to express a personal opinion. Regardless of whether this voice reaches a majority or not, democracies agree that unless there is a clear moral objection to the result, the number of votes should be valid.

The community will not object to the failure of swimming pool tax collection, but if people vote to accept local orders that allow slavery, the court system can intervene. two. The democratic system aims to reduce the problem of exploitation. All government formations are sensitive to exploitation by people who are elected to positions of power, unlike democracy, the distribution of authorities is more even. In this structure, the ruling document establishes a checks and balances mechanism to ensure that no one has the highest authority in the legislative process. Democracy prevents elected officials from ignoring the self-help needs of ordinary people. It challenges them to represent the needs of each community, so that everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams.

The democratic system promotes equality in a positive way. The democratic system gives equal weight to all votes in elections. This option gives everyone the opportunity to vote without trial when registering for this process, thus demonstrating that they have social or economic status. Regardless of whether you are rich or poor, whether you own land or not, all ‘yes’ or ‘no’ must be expressed in a specific way. ‘Democracy and socialism have only one word: equality,’ said Alexis de Tocqueville. ‘But please pay attention to the difference; democracy pursues freedom and equality, while socialism pursues moderation and slavery.’

Democracies generally grow economically faster than other forms of government. The freedom provided in a democratic structure enables ordinary people to seek the results they want. Although there are legal barriers to prevent one from being harmed, this governance structure allows people to freely seek different job opportunities, schools and even places of residence. The choice is in your voice. You have the opportunity to find the things that inspire you in your life. The democratic structure allows everyone to maintain fruitful results in their work because they are always using their own advantages. This is why the gross domestic product of countries that propose constitutional arrangements is usually higher. 5. Democracy has more consistency than other government agencies.

There is greater unity between government procedures and democracy, because ordinary people have the right to vote on resolutions. Different styles of this arrangement can be used, but the result is usually the same. Everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions by voting. This process allows each community to continue looking for specific results that are useful to them, or they can change direction and try new things. The democratic structure makes it possible for everyone to form a society in a way that is useful to almost everyone and therefore to unite.

Separation of power refers to the division of a state’s government into different branches, where each branch shares differentiated responsibilities and independent powers, so the powers of one branch do not conflict with the other. Thus, instead of centralizing government agencies, these separate branches make it possible to do government work much more efficiently. Namely, these three branches are the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

The executive branch is headed by the president, who is elected by citizens’ votes; the vice president, cabinet ministers, and other institutional agencies may work with the president in the executive branch. The executive branch will execute the laws given by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary. Also under the executive branch, the president has the power to appoint federal judges and accept or reject a law after the legislature has passed it. The executive branch will also focus on the country’s development by maintaining financial and administrative policies within the country, as well as establishing foreign relations with other countries through signing treaties between countries. Thus, the importance of the executive branch is that it is responsible for executing the correct law within the state as the president is responsible for its citizen’s vote and must be able to make proper decisions on behalf of its citizens who elected the president to the position.

The legislative branch of the government is made up of the House and the Senate, which is collectively known as Congress. The members of the legislature are known as legislators and they are appointed directly or indirectly by election, and these legislators represent the entire population or particular groups within the state. The legislator has certain functions like making laws, maintaining the government budget, controlling the executive, and making amendments to the constitution. Under a democratic government, the members of the executive branch are also selected by the legislative members. For example, in the United States of America, Congress has two main parts – the House of Representatives and the Senate. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are voted by the American citizens in each state. Thus, the legislature can either be bicameral, an assembly with only one legislative chamber, such as in Finland and Hungary, or unicameral, an assembly of two legislative chambers such as in France and the USA.

The last branch is the judiciary, which is made up of courts, the Supreme Court, magistrates, and municipal courts. The judicial branch has the power to interpret, defend, and apply laws in legal cases. The state judges in the judicial branch are elected by citizens rather than being appointed. The main body of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The main aim of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has more power in making decisions, and once the Supreme Court has taken a decision, no external party can appeal its decision. The judicial system is important for a government because it provides checks and balances that a whole system works. Checks and balances refer to the principle of government under which separate powers are empowered to prevent the actions of other branches, and which are included to share power. In the United States of America, the judicial branch does not only protect the law and the rights that are given by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to its citizens, but the judiciary also makes sure that all the other government branches are working in their responsibilities towards the people of the States.

Highly developed countries in the world pay more attention to the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches maintain an equal distribution of power between each branch of government, and focus on the rights and freedoms granted to their citizens, which helps these governments to be more successful.

Introduction

Freedom of expression and the free flow of information are fundamental pillars of a democratic society. However, throughout history, governments have sought to control and suppress certain forms of speech and information through censorship. Government censorship poses significant risks to individual liberties, stifles creativity, and undermines democratic principles. This essay critically examines the practice of government censorship, highlighting its detrimental effects on society.

Threat to Freedom of Expression

Government censorship directly undermines the freedom of expression, a fundamental human right. By restricting what can be said, written, or shared, governments infringe upon individuals’ ability to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely. Freedom of expression is crucial for fostering diverse perspectives, encouraging public debate, and holding those in power accountable. Censorship limits these essential elements of a vibrant democratic society.

Suppression of Dissent and Alternative Voices

Government censorship often targets dissenting voices, critical opinions, and alternative narratives that challenge the status quo. By silencing such voices, governments create an environment where a single narrative dominates and dissent is suppressed. This stifles creativity, hinders social progress, and restricts the development of innovative ideas. Society thrives when a wide range of perspectives can be freely expressed and debated.

Curbing Access to Information

Government censorship limits access to information and inhibits the public’s ability to make informed decisions. When governments control or restrict the dissemination of certain information, they manipulate public perception, shape narratives, and maintain their grip on power. In an era of increasing connectivity and digital advancements, the free flow of information is essential for a well-informed citizenry and a functioning democracy.

Threat to Press Freedom

Government censorship poses a significant threat to press freedom, which is vital for holding governments accountable and exposing wrongdoing. When governments control or manipulate the media, they undermine the press’s ability to act as a watchdog and provide independent reporting. Journalists face censorship, intimidation, and even imprisonment for reporting on sensitive issues or uncovering government misconduct. Without press freedom, the public’s right to know is compromised, and accountability is weakened.

Chilling Effect on Creativity and Innovation

Government censorship has a chilling effect on creativity and innovation, as artists, writers, and content creators self-censor to avoid government scrutiny and punishment. When individuals fear reprisals for expressing their ideas or pushing boundaries, the vibrant cultural landscape suffers. Censorship stifles artistic expression, restricts cultural diversity, and impedes the exploration of new ideas and perspectives.

Censorship as a Tool for Propaganda and Control

Government censorship can be wielded as a tool for propaganda and control. Through selective censorship, governments manipulate public opinion, reinforce their own narratives, and suppress dissent. This allows them to consolidate power and maintain control over the population. Censorship creates an environment where critical thinking is discouraged, and citizens are more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.

Conclusion

Government censorship undermines the fundamental principles of a democratic society. It limits freedom of expression, stifles dissent, curtails access to information, and threatens press freedom. Moreover, censorship hampers creativity, inhibits innovation, and enables governments to manipulate public opinion. It is essential for individuals, civil society organizations, and international bodies to advocate for freedom of expression, resist government censorship, and protect the principles that uphold democracy and individual liberties. Only by fostering an environment of free expression can societies truly flourish, foster innovation, and promote social progress.

The American government—in particular, the presidency—was in a remarkably primitive state. But Washington’s performance in those early years was both surefooted and brilliant. He went to one session of the Senate to receive its advice about a treaty but was annoyed because senators felt uncomfortable in his presence and would not debate its provisions. Washington withdrew angrily and swore he “would be damned if he went there again,” thus ensuring a tradition of separation between the executive and legislative branches. Departments of State, War, and Treasury were established, along with the office of Attorney General, each headed by a trusted presidential adviser. These advisers collectively became known as the cabinet. Washington strove for ideological balance in these appointments, thus augmenting their strength and credibility. He signed the first Judiciary Act of 1789, initiating the development of the judicial branch. A Supreme Court was created, headed by a chief justice and originally five associate justices, who were chosen by the President and approved by Congress. A network of district courts was also established. Congress sent the President ten amendments to the Constitution that became known as the Bill of Rights; these amendments strengthened civil liberties.

Foreign-In 1789, the French Revolution sent shock waves across the Atlantic. Many Americans, mindful of French aid during their own struggle for independence, supported returning the favor. At the same time, the British were once again inciting Native Americans to attack settlers in the West, hoping to destabilize the fledgling Republic. American anger in response to these attacks served to reinforce sentiments for aiding France in any conflict with Great Britain. Washington was leery of any such foreign entanglement, considering his country too weak and unstable to fight another war with a major European power. His insistence on neutrality in foreign quarrels set another key precedent, as did his insistence that the power to make such a determination be lodged in the presidency.

Domestic-Madison was president at a time when the U.S. was involved in increased industrialization and commerce, and he signed legislation promoting these advances. He supported the infrastructure improvements championed by Henry Clay and others. Known as the American System, this economic plan sought to unify the nation through improved transportation, restrictions on imports, and the power of the national bank. Even so, Madison was fearful of giving the federal government too much. He wanted the U.S. to develop into an industrial and commercial powerhouse, but ideally he wanted that to happen privately. Because of his commitment to republican values and his desire to limit the power of the federal government, he vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817, which provided extensive government funding for improving transportation infrastructure.

Foreign-Any discussion of foreign policy under President Madison has to be understood within the context of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was fought between the U.S. and Great Britain between 1812-1815. The war was fought over several issues, including trading rights, territorial disputes along the Canadian border, and perhaps most notably over the issue of impressment. Impressment was a popular practice of the time that involved basically kidnapping foreign sailors and forcing them to fight in the kidnapper’s navy. The British Royal Navy at this time had been kidnapping American sailors and ”impressing” them into service in the Royal Navy. When negotiations broke down, Madison decided enough was enough!

Britain and France had been at war since 1803. Americans had tried hard to remain neutral in this conflict and keep up communication and trade with both countries. Unfortunately, it wasn’t working. In 1806, France passed a law that prohibited trade between neutral parties, like the U.S., and Britain. French warships soon began seizing American merchant ships. In 1807, Britain retaliated, prohibiting trade between neutral parties and France. The British also began seizing American ships and demanded that all American vessels had to check in at British ports before they could trade with any other nation. America was getting the worst end of the deal on all sides. Along with their attempts to control trade, the British also tried to satisfy their need for sailors at America’s expense.

Britain claimed the right to board American ships and take into custody men who were thought to be deserters from the British navy. Most of the time, however, the British had no proof that the men they grabbed were really British deserters, and the U.S. government saw their actions as clear cases of impressment, the seizure of innocent men for forced service in a foreign navy. Historians tend to agree with the Americans; of the approximately ten thousand men captured from American ships, only about a thousand were actually British citizens.

Americans were furious, leading Thomas Jefferson to remark, ‘Never since the Battle of Lexington have I seen this country in such a state of exasperation as at present, and even that did not produce such unanimity.’ America’s neutrality and basic rights as an independent nation had clearly been violated, and something needed to be done about it. Jefferson didn’t want war, but he was willing to take economic measures. He hoped that perhaps an embargo would hit the British and French where it would hurt them the most, right in the pocketbook.

Characteristics of Trump’s Government

Is the modern democratic state turning more conservative and authoritarian? I would argue that yes its turning more conservatist but not authoritarian, there are many examples of democratic states turning conservatist but not authoritarian. Some examples of democratic states that have turned conservatist would be Trump’s America. Others such North Korea are authoritarian regimes. We will be comparing these two in this assignment to establish whether the modern state is turning conservatist and authoritarian. We will also be going more in-depth on the meaning of conservatism and authoritarianism. This assignment will consist of what conservatism, authoritarianism and a modern state is, is trumps America turning conservatist and authoritarian, what is North Korea and a conclusion.

What are conservatism and authoritarianism?

For us to understand if democratic states are turning Conservatist and Authoritarian we must first look at what Conservatism and Authoritarianism are.

Conservatism is a political ideology that “emphasises the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is preference for the historical inherited than by the abstract and ideal” (Peter Viereck; Richard Dagger; Terence Ball; Kenneth Minogue, 2020). The preference of conservatism has traditionally rested on a conception of society, the belief that society is not just a collection of people but a “living organism” (Peter Viereck; ct; 2) of closely linked interdependent members.

In the ideology of conservatism, it is believed that the government’s duty is to be the servant in preference to being the master for that reason the politicians must not rework modern-day society and politics. Thus conservatist governments despise the liberal ideology as it brings in a modernizing, anti-traditionalist manner of thinking, that’s to correct the wronging doing of abuse from the misuse of social and political power. The creator Ambrose Bierce critically described conservatism as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” In his book “the Devils Dictionary (1906)” (Peter Viereck; ct; 2).

In the late 18th century due do the response of the french revolution did conservatism begin to become a distinct political ideology and movement. Conservatism as a term was best introduced after 1815 with the aid of the supporters of the Bourbon monarchy in France. John Wilson Croker used the term conservatism to explain the British Tory Party and later John C. Calhoun a defender of the states’ rights in America followed the term thereafter.

Edmund Burke was a British political writer and parliamentarian whose thoughts on the Revolution in France in the 1790s were an expression of conservatists rejecting the French revolution and a large inspiration for counterrevolutionary theorists within the 19th century.

A common way of telling the difference between conservatism and both liberalism and radicalism is to say “conservatives reject the optimistic view that human beings can be morally improved through political and social change” (Peter Viereck; ct; 2).

Characteristics of a conservatist state:

1. Tradition.
2. A natural society.
3. Hierarchy.
4. Authority.
5. Property rights.

Authoritarianism is “the principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people” (Britannica, 2017).

Leaders in authoritarian regimes exercise their power volitionally and with no relevance the present law. These leaders aren’t replaced by voters selecting to freely vote them out for an additional candidate in elections. In authoritarian regimes the liberty to form associate opposing parties or another political parties with to contend with in national elections is either restricted or not aloud.

Authoritarianism could be a elementary distinction to democracy. it’s totally different to a totalitarianism however as a result of authoritarian governments don’t usually have developed guiding ideologies and therefore they tolerate some philosophy within the social atmosphere and that they lack power to inspire the population to chase national goals, they exercise the ability in predictable limits.

Examples of authoritarian regimes according to indy100 which rated countries on scales on 1 – 10 in 2016 with 1 – 2 being Authoritarian 3 – 4 being a Hybrid government 5 – 7 being a Flawed democracy and 8 – 10 being a full democracy. Authoritarian countries would be North Korea, Syria, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and more (Vesey-Byrne, 2017).

Characteristics of an authoritarian state would be:

1. A limited political spectrum with restrictions on the activities of groups and parties.
2. Not much social movement and political participation.
3. A dominant political culture.
4. And finally a personalized form of leadership.

Is Trumps America Conservatist and Authoritarian?

Since we know what an authoritarian government is and what its characteristics is we can thus check to see if America is an authoritarian government with these characteristics. We hereby can compare if America has a limited political spectrum with restrictions on the activities of other groups and parties.

We know America does not have a limited political spectrum with restrictions over other groups and parties because trump has never placed any law in that would limit the democratic party and leave the republican party as the only one to vote for. We know that Americans are extremely into their social and political participation.

We can take for example Colin Kaepernick and his protest against police brutality in 2016 and how Americans rallied behind him in support, another example would be the Native Americans march to the site of a sacred burial ground that was disturbed by bulldozers building the Dakota Access Pipeline(2016) (Davis, 2016), the #metoo movement, black lives matter movement and no ban no wall movement in 2018 (Callahan, 2018) and finally the woman’s march, the Direct action to address climate breakdown and the movement for a better economy(2019). All these movements show us that Americans do have social and political participation (Foreman, 2018).

Does America have a personalized form a leadership under trump? I would say no, Donald Trump is being like all previous presidents of the united states but more controversial. Thus since we have checked none of the boxes for an authoritarian government we know America isn’t turning authoritarian.

Since we know what a modern state is and what its characteristics are we can thus check to see if America is a modern state with these characteristics.

Does America have defined territory, yes it does, it borders Canada and Mexico. Does America have a permanent population, that is true America does have a permanent population. Is there a functional government, yes there is, the current government is the republican party and they are a functional government. And finally, does America have Sovereignty? Yes they can control the population with the military and the police. Thus we know America is a modern state.

Does Trumps America support a Traditional government, A natural society, Hierarchy, Authority, and Property rights? Many republican Americans are Christian and believe in keeping up traditions even in the government thus they do support the traditional government. I would agree that Americans agree with natural society and leaving people to live in freedom as long as it does not break the law. Americans do not support a hierarchy and more of a class-based system of wealth. Americans only listen to authority as in the police and the government and thus there is an authority in America. Lastly Americans believe in property rights and each having to work for their own share in a capitalist society. Thus America is turning conservatist.

Bibliography

1. Peter Viereck; Richard Dagger; Terence Ball; Kenneth Minogue, 2020. Conservatism. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism [Accessed 23 Febuary 2020].
2. Britannica, T. E. o. E., 2017. Authoritarianism. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism [Accessed 23 February 2020].
3. Vesey-Byrne, J., 2017. indy100 from independent. [Online] Available at: https://www.indy100.com/article/global-democracy-index-2016-study-most-authoritarian-democracy-usa-downgraded-latest-7587516 [Accessed 25 February 2020].
4. D’Amato, D. S., 2018. Understanding the Modern State. [Online] Available at: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/understanding-modern-state [Accessed 03 March 2020].
5. D’Amato, D. S., 2017. Understanding the Feudal Order. [Online] Available at: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/understanding-feudal-order [Accessed 03 March 2020].
6. Editorial, e., 2012. Characteristics Of A State. [Online] Available at: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-characteristics-state-310769 [Accessed 05 March 2020].
7. Davis, R., 2016. 16 Powerful Protests That Shaped News And Culture In 2016. [Online] Available at: https://www.essence.com/culture/protests-movements-2016/#69516 [Accessed 07 March 2020].
8. Callahan, M., 2018. #METOO, #BLACKLIVESMATTER, #NOBANNOWALL: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS LIKELY TO DOMINATE 2018. [Online] Available at: https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/01/12/metoo-blacklivesmatter-nobannowall-social-movements-likely-to-dominate-2018/ [Accessed 07 March 2020].
9. Foreman, E., 2018. Three Movements To Watch Out For In 2019. [Online] Available at: https://thesocialchangeagency.org/three-movements-to-watch-2019/ [Accessed 08 March 2020].

Developmental Republicanism: Does It Have a Place in Policy Making of Today American Government

Time is something of a nuisance when it comes to policy-making. In an ever-changing world where there are advancements in all aspects of life, are we still expected to use old laws, or do we passively follow the policies made by people who lived in completely different circumstances? It is a question that is worth asking given that if policies were openly changed, the validity of those policies would be put under scrutiny given that all the judgments that were brought down in the past have no substance to them, judgements in regard to policies that have now changed to accommodate a changing society. When we look at democratic history, there are plenty of shifts that have happened which led to a plethora of ancient/classical democratic theories and also contemporary theories of republicanism and democracy. Take in case Republicanism. To be more specific developmental republicanism. This essay will focus on how a classical/ancient theory of democracy such as developmental republicanism, has had its implications for creating policy today and also to inform a comprehension of today’s issues and the nature of republicanism because of the beginnings of the will of the people, implementation in the American governance system, and how the old can influence the new. Before the main points and evidence breakdown, this essay will showcase some historical context for developmental republicanism.

Republicanism. A word that has been given fortitude and meaning over the years of its development and implementation in democracy. But every ideology, especially ones that have gone through so many different philosophers, has forms that change and influence other theories. The theory of developmental republicanism is a theory that is widely accepted as a stepping stone to how republicanism is today. David Held’s Models of Democracy, says that “although it was not until the writings of Rousseau in the eighteenth century that it probably acquired its most elaborate statement”. (Held, 2006, p. 35) What Held is insinuating is that developmental republicanism was quite a mixed theory when Rousseau took it over from the Marsilius of Padua. It was a mixed theory given that after Padua was in power, Niccolo Machiavelli took great influence from developmental republicanism to his own protective republicanism. Rousseau then took influence from both Padua and Machiavelli with changes of his own to utilize protective republicanism, as it is not in its developmental stage anymore. Held has said that “the republican creation of a self-ruling community which is elaborated in two variants: protective and developmental republicanism” (Held, 2006, p.3), this shows that there is a differentiation between the two forms of republicanism, but they are still close relatives or “variants” of core republicanism. In the words of George Garnett, the Marillius of Padua was a man who was considered to be ahead of his time given that he was the first nonreligious political theorist to adopt republicanism. (Garnett. G, 2006, p.1) Although Padua was a renowned gentleman of his time, a recent news report from the University of Leuven adds some fruit to the thought of that Padua’s political thoughts have some “Averroist” foundations. (VerticalNews, 2019, p.1) Averroist is a medieval school of philosophy that is based on interpretations of Aristotle and his reconciliation with Aristotelianism with the Islamic Faith. (Brittanica, 2009, p.1) Does any of this contribute to the importance of developmental republicanism? Yes and no. This shows that Padua has had differing opinions on his theory of republicanism which could then contribute to the fact that developmental republicanism was not a popular theory until contemporary times.

Back when Rousseau was in power, he was barely ever listened to in regards to his views on governance. Rousseau believed in the theory of developmental republicanism as it brought the idea of the “will of the people” to the forefront. A focus on collectives and teamwork would have been a very powerful asset to have and a very prideful one at that. Americans should have welcomed Rousseau’s ideas as they should have been the most “receptive to his ideas and, indeed, most in need of them. In almost everything that mattered, Rousseau and the New World republicans espoused the same values and shared the same dilemmas” (Zuckerman, 2012, p. 20) But, Americans “do not treasure freedom, individuality, and personal development as they say they do. They have always preferred more conformist and collective, more controlling and coercive”. (Zuckerman, 2012, p.30) This shows us that the new republic back then in Rousseau’s time did not think for themselves or even wanted to. That people preferred a more controlling environment and they preferred being controlled over by a higher power, like a god among them, beckoning orders at them. A severe departure as to how things are today where the will of the people is taken into account more often than not. Although we have higher powers in today’s American governments and we listen and abide by rules set by these higher powers, we are not “coerced” by them in any way shape, or form. The will of the people is implemented in so many aspects of our life. In the words of Jonathan Israel, Rousseau had a long and lasting impression on philosophical education but still sorely lost out in the great educational debate in the 1970s in France. (Israel. J, 2012) This also contributes to the fact that not just Americans, who should have been susceptible to Rousseau’s ideals, but the French were also not cooperating with Rousseau’s ideals. It is as if the world at the time did not believe in a common collective or being homogenous with each other. The state of being equal with others must have not been a point of contention between people.

This might be quite an unorthodox connection to developmental republicanism, but it fits nonetheless. Back when “Sonic The Hedgehog” released its first trailer, the blue hedgehog looked absolutely terrible, and fans hated it. So what did fans do? They trashed the film and threatened to boycott it because of how bad the character looked. The film was then delayed given how much backlash was received. The film was delayed for the sole purpose of changing the way Sonic looked. And, they completely changed the way Sonic looks to make him look more like well, Sonic. (Lee. C, 2020, p.1) The “will of the people” beat the corporation that is Paramount. The people were not controlled or coerced in any way during this whole escapade. This would have never happened if it weren’t for the invention of developmental republicanism by Padua and by Rousseau, both incredible men.

The social infrastructure and American government today that we have built over time, are an infrastructure that implements so many different theories of republicanism and democracy alike to allow governance to move steadfastly and efficiently. This same social infrastructure gave birth to the beast that is social media. This can be seen as either a big step up for some people when compared to past social infrastructures, or the opposite. Greenpeace International, the non-governmental organization that fights for environmental justice did use the developmental republicanism model “for setting organizational policy” and “forming effective leaders who are committed to the cause”. (Roose, 2012, p.1) Greenpeace International’s implementation of developmental republicanism into their own governance system is something of a mixed bag but still fully operational. In regards to the strengths of the developmental republic model, David Roose said: “fostering virtue and homogeneity in its members before they are enfranchised, allowing the democratic process to promote the most virtuous members, and legitimizing the decisions of the Council by creating a forum conducive to deliberation”. (Roose, 2012, pa. 17) In regards to the weaknesses of the developmental republic model, Roose writes that the developmental republican setting for policy-making actually reduces the quality of policy given that environmental causes come up which could then lead to bureaucratic thinking within groups. (Roose, 2012, pa. 20) These two excerpts show us that the developmental republic model that Greenpeace uses has its strengths and its weaknesses. The main strength of the form is that it encourages and succeeds in instilling a state of being equal within a collective, much like what Rousseau preached. The fact there are strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of developmental republicanism shows that it can still be used in a contemporary setting. If it can be used in this fashion then it could answer the question of if ancient/classical theories still have a role to play in today’s policymaking.

We live in an ever-changing world filled with new developments left and right. Developments that impact our health system, entertainment, culture, food, you name it. Democracy and policymaking developments are happening all over the world. Marijuana laws, new policies like an increase in federal taxes, vaping regulations, an indigenous welfare system and so much more. (Puzic.S, 2020, p.1) All of these are contemporary policies that are only being issued and brought upon in 2020. Imagine the number of new policies that come in every year and especially back during developmental democracy times. Do those older policies still have a role to play in today’s society and policymaking? Yes, given that older policies are subject to change when circumstances change in the world. Shifts to policies are very possible. For example, developmental democracy has changed considerably since its inception. In the words of Peter Cannavo, “change and stability would be distributed along a spectrum of places in a democratically governed region. Such an approach would combine the best of Jefferson’s republicanism and Thoreau’s environmentalism: civic virtue, attention to the common good, democratic participation, material moderation, political and ecological sustainability, and a respectful but materially engaged relationship with the natural world. (Cannavo. P, 2010, p.371) This shows the change in democratic governance with Jeffersonian environmentalism governance within it as well. What was said by Cannavo is interesting in that, what was brought upon when Jefferson and Thoreau combined their republicanism and environmentalism model are all ideas that are shared now in democratic governance in America. This shows that the old can influence the new. Civic virtue, democratic participation, material moderation, and political and ecological sustainability are all ideologies that are present within our society albeit, a little unrefined. Unrefined in the sense that democratic systems focus on so many things all at once; so for every single ideology to be contributed equally is a task on its own. In the words of Mark Warren, democratic systems should maximize the number of people within the system. (Warren. M, 2002, p.678) In the words of Sara Bosin, “Civic virtue helps people understand their ties to the community and their responsibilities within it. In many ways, an educated citizen who possesses civic virtue is a public good”. (Bosin. S, n.a) These two excerpts show that the ideas of civic virtue and democratic participation are still present and alive even now. Thus the old can influence the new.

The form of republicanism known as developmental republicanism is a model that has contributed so much to the current democratic government system in the United States. Governance should be based on common collectives and not with higher powers barking orders at the weak and weary which is sadly what the world had succumbed to when Rousseau was in power trying to change things for the better. A developmental republicanism is a form of republicanism that shows how a classical/ancient theory of democracy can still have a role to play in today’s policymaking. Homogenous collective where people are equal in every sense of the word, the instilling of developmental republicanism in a non-governmental system, and how it is still possible for an elderly theory to still be relevant even in an everchanging world are all characteristic of developmental republicanism. Finding common goodness within each other is the best way to lead a democracy. Padua and Rousseau believed in that. “The general will is the best rule”. (Jean-Jaques Rousseau)

Kim Jung Un as a Modern Day Prince: Policy of American Government towards North Korea

In Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince” he analyzes and creates the supposed perfect formula that makes up a proper prince. These range from military duties, praise and blame, generosity and miserliness, cruelty and mercy, and the concept of being despised or hated as a leader. His writing depicts a ruler similar to what we would consider today a tyrannical rule. Though it may not be all the same there are examples of leaders over the decades who used this style of the rule to control their countries, from Fidel Castro, and Mussolini to more modern-day leaders like Kim Jong Un. They all share similarities with Machiavelli’s writing but Kim Jong Un fits the bill the most of any current leader when it comes to following Machiavelli’s listed qualities of a prince, but that doesn’t make him a good leader in the slightest.

Firstly we can see how Kim Jung Un fits into Machiavelli’s category of, “How a Prince Should Keep His Word” he states, “But it is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and to be a great hypocrite and liar (22)” this is in reference to a Prince being able to come off as someone grand and amazing but also being deceitful to make people believe he is that way. We can see this in the North Korean dictatorship with how Kim Jong Un uses self-promoting propaganda that increases his own image, making him seem like a supreme being and one that can triumph all. An example of this deceitful propaganda is when the Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated,

Leader Kim Jong Un has used ginseng and undisclosed rare earth elements with the use of micro-elementary fertilizers to create a complex compound that acts as a strong-immune-activator that can prevent malicious illnesses such as various cancers, aids, and ebola. (5-6)

These claims help him gain support as a leader in his country but hold little to no credibility in outside countries. Using this deception he portrays himself to be a leader with the ability to do many things, just as Machiavelli says a prince should be. Putting Kim Jong Un in this context shows how well he fits this portion of Machiavelli’s qualities, by appearing to be extremely intelligent, humane, and caring the people praise him more while it’s merely a facade to gain the people’s loyalty through unjust and unethical means.

We can see another quality Kim Jong Un possesses is “ A Prince’s Duty Concerning Military Matters” Machiavelli states

For, among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised; this is one of those infamies a prince should guard himself against, as will be treated below: for between an armed man and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly. (Machiavelli, 2)

Its seen time and time again that Kim Jong Un’s use of new weaponry to create the image of a powerful country. From missile launches over other countries to the showing of nuclear warheads, he uses his armory to create an image of a strong, military-heavy leader that has the power to disregard orders from any contesting country. The use of these missiles is a symbol of strength and as stated by the Council of Foreign Relations

As the power of the North’s nuclear tests intensified, so too did the pace of both the country’s nuclear and missile tests. Under Kim Jong-un, who assumed leadership of North Korea in late 2011, the nuclear program markedly accelerated. Kim has directed four nuclear tests and more than ninety missile tests, far exceeding the number of trials conducted under his father and grandfather. (8)

This constant testing and show of arms is a full-on show and display of power, a sign that as the leader he is armed, prepared, and unafraid to take action if the need for it arises. Just like a prince should, he “never raises his thought from the exercise of war” though this way of thinking could lead to mass destruction and unnecessary lives being expended.

Lastly, another quality that stands out in Kim Jong Un’s dictatorship that matches that of a prince is the concept of cruelty and clemency. Machiavelli goes on to state that as a prince “It is much safer to be feared rather than loved.” We see a prime example of this in Kim Jong Un’s reign, time and time again it’s been stated and reported that as a leader he uses torture and other unethical practices as a form of building fear against those who might seek to oppose him. According to Human Rights Watch, they write,

The government routinely uses arbitrary arrest and punishment of crimes, torture in custody, and executions to maintain fear and control over the population. The government and security agencies systematically extract forced, unpaid labor from its citizens— including women, children, detainees, and prisoners—to build infrastructure, implement projects, and carry out activities and events extolling the ruling Kim family and the Workers’ Party of Korea. (2)

Anyone who is against the regime or the leader himself is made an example through many means, from torture and release to public executions. This keeps the people in check and provides Kim Jong Un to rule with fear, controlling the people of North Korea on the basis of obeying or suffering. It relates to Machiavellianism perfectly, it makes Kim Jong Un seem less vulnerable as a leader allowing him to stand even higher above all others, this installment of fear is what allows him to dictate the country as he pleases with little to no tribulation. Kim Jong Un even uses these methods on people of his own party as a way to stop any sort of internal uprising within his own ranks, this ability to pick off who he pleases and rule his own way makes him a prince who stands above all others according to Machiavelli.

Even though Machiavelli claims these characteristics make a good leader, in today’s society, it merely leads to a dictatorship and or totalitarian government. We can see through the rule of Kim Jong Un that these qualities lead to a country with fear-filled people, a destructive militaristic mindset, and manipulative tendencies, none of which are ethical or morally just. Through his rule Kim Jong Un has killed his own people and party members due to the possibility of an uprising, he has developed weapons of mass destruction that he has threatened to let off at any moment, and he has molded the minds of innocent people to believe that he is a supreme being with powers and judgment over all. These prince qualities are not made for the people but for the benefit of one sole individual, an individual who can’t tolerate the ideas of others, and can’t respect the people they hold power over.

Peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula is the ultimate goal for the United States in its relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The United States works closely with allies and partners in the region toward greater peace and security in the region. The United States and the DPRK do not have diplomatic relations. The Swedish Embassy in the DPRK is the U.S. protecting power and provides limited consular services to U.S. citizens. The DPRK has no embassy in Washington, DC, but it is represented in the United States through its mission to the United Nations in New York.

John Locke, arguably one of the most influential contemporary figures to shape the modern western world, but also, arguably one of the most contradictory. Within his work, Second Treatise of Government, Locke explores numerous political concepts such as the idea that as members of society, we consent to have a government and we consent to our government taking some of our freedoms in exchange for the protection of life, liberty, and property. In addition, Locke also explores other concepts such as slavery and family, with this essay focusing on Locke’s continuous contradictions of his own thoughts and ideas throughout Second Treatise of Government and some of his other works. This essay will explore Locke’s belief that the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, despite Locke himself being involved within an African slave trade company, along with the idea that children cannot be enslaved, even though children are continuously born into slavery. In this essay, I will argue that as members of society we do not actually consent to our government and that Locke’s androcentric view about family is not perfect and that the concept of family is vehemently different from what Locke describes within the Second Treatise of Government, especially within today’s modern society. I will also further argue in this essay that Locke is a very contradictory and hypocritical philosophical thinker.

Within his work, the Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues that men are naturally free and equal and that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke is also referred to as the ‘father of liberalism’, with modern-day liberalism having many tight-knit connections to Locke’s contemporary ideas, established throughout his work. Liberalism is a political theory with foundations of freedom, consent to government, and morality, thus bringing us to Locke’s concept of consenting to a government or an authority.

According to Locke, humans within the state of nature are peaceful, and that this is only because humans were never previously subject to a common authority and that as living beings, we all possess natural rights that a common authority cannot take away. Locke also believes that we consent to let an authority taking some of our natural rights away in exchange for freedom, liberty, and property as mentioned previously; this is known as the social contract. This can be corroborated to chapter VIII, section 95 of Second Treatise of Government with Locke writing, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent ”. Locke implies that as humans, we consent to be governed by authority and that we can take this consent away immediately if the governing authority does not fulfill its half of a ‘contract’, and that we have the natural right to rebel if that happens. This claim is important because it lays the foundations down for modern liberalism and modern liberal thinking. However, this claim is not compelling because we cannot just rebel and overthrow our governing authority if we do not agree with their actions or if we think they are not fulfilling their side of the ‘contract’, especially in modern times, despite Locke saying that it is our moral obligation to rebel if the governing authority doesn’t fulfill their side of the contract. However, Locke’s theory about government consent did influence and shape modern western society’s development, but not to the extent to where we could take our consent away; if we did rebel against a governing authority we would be silenced by police, and we would be punished. In addition, this is not compelling because consent is subjective and there are different types of consent; tacit and express. One person might consent to a certain governing authority, but that does not mean that everyone consents to the same governing authority. This, therefore, implies that consent to a government is a somewhat ambiguous concept and subjective to each individual person, thus also making consent to government impossible. One person might withdraw their consent from a certain governing authority but that does not mean that a governing authority will be removed from power. Furthermore, we are born into a society with the government so do not even get the opportunity to consent to the governing authority which is something that Locke does not address within his work, therefore contradicting his original point of consent to governing authority.

As mentioned previously, Locke splits consent into two different forms, tacit and express. In chapter VIII of Second Treatise of Government, Locke writes, “there is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent”. Locke implies that by walking along a road of a country or state, we tacitly consent to the government and therefore adhere to their rules and regulations. This is not compelling because as members of society, we may consent to using the roads or to obeying the rules of the governing authority, but we may not consent to the governing authority in power; this is a grey area in Locke’s work because it might make sense for one man to consent to a governing authority if it benefits them, but may not make sense for another. Locke also writes in chapter VIII of Second Treatise of Government, “the difficulty is, what ought to be looked on as tacit consent, and how far it binds”. This is compelling because there is nothing to say how far our tacit consent to a governing authority reaches. However, Locke does not provide any support for his claims as to how far tacit consent binds us to government, but he does, however, recognize that there is nothing to suggest how far tacit consent binds us to a government; Locke’s concept of tacit consent is too broad.

According to Locke, as mentioned briefly previously within this essay, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent.” Locke implies that we are all free to do as we please, even under a governing authority. This is not compelling because our freedom is not consistent with the law as Locke believes, in reality, we are not free to do what we want under the law; if I decided I wanted to build a house in a field without first consulting a governing authority, I would be punished because the government controls what I can and cannot do. Under a governing authority, we are somewhat free depending on which country or state that we are born into, but only to an extent. We are free in terms of being able to travel where we want to, but we are not free to take away our consent from a government if they are not fulfilling their purpose of protection of freedom, property, and life. Locke does not provide a lot of support for his claims throughout the Second Treatise of Government, and thus a lot of his arguments are deeply radical and contradictory to one another, especially when consent comes into play.

According to Locke, “the natural liberty of a man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not be under the will or legislative authority of another man ”, and yet slavery was a massive part of Locke’s life and a massive part of history. This is extremely contradictory of Locke because he was, in fact, involved in an African slave trade company, despite writing in the Second Treatise of Government that no man should be under the power of another man. Throughout chapter IV of Second Treatise of Government, Locke consistently re-enforces the idea that no man should be under the authoritative power of another man, with Locke also writing, “this is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued” , thus implying that slavery is just as bad as war itself. This is highly hypocritical of Locke because of his involvement within an African slave trade company, despite somewhat comparing slavery to war, an obviously bad thing, and despite slavery benefitting him financially, thus further implying that Locke was only against slavery when it suited him. Slavery was also not justified in any of his work, further supporting the claim that Locke is highly contradictory to himself.

Locke also argues that children cannot be enslaved and that children born of slaves cannot be enslaved. This is problematic because children born into slavery will still be enslaved, regardless of whether Locke believes they cannot be enslaved. This can be corroborated by Locke’s Political Thought, in which Locke claims that slavery “reaches no further than the persons who act unjustly” This is an example of yet another contradiction to Locke’s claims in his work because children are continuously born into slavery and thus enslaved, which can also be corroborated to Locke’s claim that nobody can be enslaved because as mentioned previously, people are still continuously enslaved, with Locke also likely contributing to the enslavement of men, women, and children due to his involvement within an African slave trade company. Locke seemingly regards slavery as only for those who have committed crimes or for people who have acted ‘unjustly’ and yet the people enslaved were mostly innocent and were forced into slavery which Locke likely knew due to his previously mentioned involvement with the slave trade, therefore showing another contradiction within his work.

Throughout his work, Locke also re-enforces the idea that if you work on a property or on the land then it is yours and the government cannot take it away from you. This can be corroborated to Chapter V of Second Treatise of Government, in which Locke writes, “the labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. This can be corroborated to slavery because slaves generally work on farms and on the land, but do not own the land that they work on which is thus another highly contradictory part of Locke’s work because slaves are forced to work by other men on their land but then do not benefit from the land in any way, thus displaying the inconsistencies in Locke’s claims and ideas.

In chapter VII of the Second Treatise of Government, Locke focuses on the foundations of what a family consists of and the foundations of society. In chapter, VII Locke writes, “The first society was between man and wife, which gave the beginnings to that between parents and children” Locke implies that family is a God given institution with a very androcentric view of what a family is, thereby implying that a man is the master of the family and that he has a wife, a servant, and children. This is not compelling because family is a very ambiguous concept and is subjective to individuals. People may refer to their friends as family, or their unmarried partner as their family. A modern family can also include two men or two women instead of a man and a woman, or also not include children, therefore making Locke’s androcentric view with a man at the top and with a wife very inconsistent and not relevant to modern times. Furthermore, a family is more than just a husband-wife and children so Locke’s view of what a family is seems quite trivial. However, the idea of an androcentric family is somewhat compelling because, at the time that Locke was writing, there was no other ‘type’ of families such as a family with two men or two women, homosexuality would not have been taken into account by Locke and was not considered the ‘norm’ as such.

For Locke, the duty of being a parent is to educate your children. Locke views children as very immature, in the same way, he views American Indians. Within the Two Treatises, Locke implies that parents must, “take care of their offspring in the imperfect state of childhood”. This idea is somewhat compelling because children are generally immature until they are educated, and it is the parent’s duty to educate their children as they grow older. Locke implies that without education, children cannot have the potential for reason, which therefore means that children cannot have power if they do not have the ability to reason. However, Locke yet again contradicts himself within his work Some Thoughts on Education in which Locke writes, “children understand the reason as early as they do language”, thus further supporting the argument that Locke is a very contradictory philosophical thinker as he literally states that children can, in fact, reason from a very young age. Locke also fails to support the points he makes throughout his work and frequently states one thing but then also contradicts that same statement later, as shown within Some Thoughts on Education.

Locke’s concept of children being ‘immature’ until educated can be compared to Aristotle’s view within Nicomachean Ethics that children cannot be happy. Within Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that children cannot be happy because they aren’t capable of feeling happiness at such a young age. This can be corroborated to Nicomachean Ethics in which Aristotle writes, “for this cause also, children cannot be happy, for they are not old enough to be capable of noble acts”. This can be compared to Locke’s view that children cannot have the potential for a reason until they are educated by their parents and that children are ‘immature’ in numerous ways. Firstly, within Nicomachean Ethics it is as if Aristotle views children’s emotions as ‘immature, just as Locke views children as being immature, therefore implying that both philosophical thinkers seem to have a very trivial view of children and also both seem to underestimate children and their feelings or capabilities. Locke implies that children cannot reason until they’re older and educated, similarly to Aristotle who implies that children cannot know happiness because they are too young to feel happiness, thus implying that both philosophical thinkers are similar in a sense that they believe that children are not capable of numerous things until they get older, which in the case of Locke and Aristotle is reason and happiness.

In conclusion, throughout his work John Locke is arguably the most contradictory philosophical thinker to date. Locke continuously contradicts himself, especially within the Second Treatise of Government. As mentioned within the body of this essay, Locke contradicts himself when it comes to slavery, arguing that no man can be under the authority of another man, and yet, despite this was involved in an African slave trade company that enslaved people; Locke seemingly only argues that slavery is an awful thing when it suits him and when it does not benefit him. Throughout his work, Locke continuously fails to support his claims and ideas, along with his work being littered with hypocrisy. However, Locke’s androcentric view of the family can be somewhat excused because, at the time, there was no other form of family and family was strictly between a man and a woman with the man or husband having power and authority over the rest of the family. Locke’s claims of men being free and equal to do as they wish under a government are also inconsistent and not very compelling because in reality, we are not free under a governing authority and we did not even get to choose whether we consented to be governed because most people were born under a governing authority, even at the time Locke was writing, another point in which Locke fails to support. However, Locke’s concept of consenting to a government or governing authority did lay the foundations for modern-day liberalism, therefore making Locke, arguably the ‘father of liberalism. Overall, Locke continuously fails to support his ideas and claims throughout many of his works and is definitively one of the most contradictory, radical, and hypocritical contemporary philosophical thinkers of the seventeenth century.

In a world dominated by government control we must wonder if the government is controlling most aspects of our lives. One main thing that the governments in the U.S. and in Brave New World is birth control. Both offer pills and clinics to support the persons cause. A Brave New World’s government makes the citizens take the pill as soon as possible when pregnant. This shows how the government controls certain aspects of life like reproduction. Another country that implements population control is China. China had the one child policy limiting families to just one child. Ultimately the government is controlling the population.

Advertisements about birth control pills and abortion clinics are never seen on television or even on billboards, but somehow people discover ways of acquiring birth control pills and finding abortion clinics. In a country where we can acquire certain items for free, we tend to not think about who supplies or pays for these items. In every single state of the United States, birth control pills and abortion clinics can be found just around the corner. Based on “Pro Life Actions,” there are approximately 750 abortion clinics all over the United States. Also, with the help of “Planned Parent Hood,” birth control pills can be easily attained. Both websites, that can be accessed by anyone, shows us how easy it is to get birth control pills and where to locate an abortion clinic.

The United States doesn’t force anyone to take birth control, but Brave New World’s does. However, many women chose to take it. Based on “Religious Tolerance’s” website, a woman can’t receive an abortion after her first trimester. If an abortion happens after that, it is considered in many states killing an actual human being. Altogether abortion clinics and pills are set in place to have a choice for women and control the population.

Clinics are paid for voluntarily by the state government and not the federal. Although the federal government does not support abortion, they let them operate to keep the peace. By abortion clinics running continuously, the federal government is supporting abortion clinics without making it known. Ultimately leaving clinics open for the public relates to the way in how Brave New World’s government doesn’t support rebirth.

The government in A Brave New World makes the use pills mandatory and immediate abortion if pregnant.. If a person in the new world were to get pregnant, they would have to get an abortion immediately. The new world states that children are unnecessary since they are all grown from test tubes and can be fashioned into whomever they want them to be. If one were to become pregnant and not get an abortion, they would be looked at differently and possibly not allowed to live among the people of the new world. “And I was so ashamed. Just think of it: me, a Beta – having a baby: put yourself in my place.” (Huxley 120) We know that becoming pregnant would be looked down upon because Linda who was once part of the new world became pregnant with a boy and she ultimately never returned to the new world because of her pregnancy. She was so ashamed that she was pregnant she let herself become old and ugly. By having the ability to control every single person, the new world’s government has total control over what its people wants, needs, and does.

By controlling every single person in the new world, the government also controls the development of its children. Since the new world’s government controls the development of its children, the government can keep a close eye on how many people are brought into the new world. In fact, the government breeds people for specific classes therefore giving them specific jobs. The new world’s government “predestine and condition” (Huxley 13) meaning the government specifically controls you for the task they prefer.. By doing so, the new world’s government has total control over the development of its children and its people. They further their grasp on their people by letting people know that having children is unnecessary since they are practically bred from test tubes. By breeding their own leaders in test tubes, the government in A Brave New World has completely made themselves apart of its own society. By controlling every aspect of the people’s lives, the new world has completely taken away their personal freedom.

Similarly, like the domineering government in the new world, China’s government tries to control the population level, which also means that China is trying to control the development of its children. According to Matt Rosenberg, the Chinese government allows each couple to have “one child” and this policy is called China’s “One Child Policy”. This is one of many key differences between China and the new world. Rosenberg states that each family in China can have one child without any kind of repercussions from the government. However, Rosenberg lets us know that, most Chinese couples prefer a boy and that this ultimately leads couples to having abortions when pregnant with a girl. Consequently, China’s “One Child Policy” has led to the death of several unborn female infants. Based on Rosenberg’s estimates, there are approximately “114 males for every 100 females”. By controlling the population levels China is not risking over population which they are trying to avoid. Similarly, the new world does the same thing, but all of the children are developed in test tubes in a lab. Both China and the new world are doing whatever it takes to control the population levels because by having more children, the country would become unbalanced.

The government in A Brave New World has complete control of its people and in a way, this reflects the control our government has over us. Although our government doesn’t require us to take birth control pills or get abortions, our government lets us know that abortion clinics and birth control pills are ready for us to take whenever we need them. Unlike our government or A Brave New World’s government, China, being a communist country, wants to have complete control of its people and they do have this power by only allowing one child per couple/family. Although it is harsh to do this to the people of China, the Chinese government is trying their best to try to keep the population level low. In any country we must be able to realize whether or not the government is controlling us in any kind of way. Nobody would argue that the involvement of our government within our lives is too much but at the same time most people do not know how much the government controls our lives.

Works Cited

1. Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Vintage Classic, 2018.
2. “Pro Life Action.” Prolifeaction.org. Prolife. N.d. 13March 2011.
3. “Public Funding for Abortion.” Aclu.org. 21 July 2004. 13 March 2011.
4. “Religious Tolerance.” Religioustolerance.org. N.d. 27 March 2011.
5. Rosenberg, Matt. “China’s One Child Policy.” Geography.about.com. 2 March 20

A nation where the government works for the people, where the people can rebel against the government if it’s not protecting their rights, where because we’re all equal, we all have the right to life, liberty, and property, with the separation of the church and government with no monarchy because how valid is it really that someone gets to be born into power? What kind of idea is that? One that you need to lock down, by John Locke.

John Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in Wrington, Somerset, England. His father, John Locke was a lawyer and small landowner who had served for the Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War and also served as a clerk to the Justices of the Peace in Chew Magna; His mother was Agnes Keene a tanner’s daughter who’s said to have been beautiful. Both his parents were Puritans and middle class, Agnes being 10 years John’s senior, after a year of their marriage they had John then their second, Peter, died in infancy; and their third, Thomas, was born in August 1637. Soon after John’s birth, the family moved to Pensford, about seven miles south of Bristol, and lived in a rural Tudor house in Belluton. It is believed that Agnes died soon after her third child’s birth.

For his education, he attended Westminster school at 14 years old. At Westminster, Locke studies Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, Mathematics, and Geography and in 1960 he was elected as King’s Scholar which was an academic honor and financial benefit as it allowed him to buy himself other books to further his education. Although Locke’s education was a privileged one, the enforcement and disciplinary methods were one he did not approve; of as birching was practiced very often at his school. Later on in his life, Locke outed the school system in his book Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1963) due to his friend Edward Clarke’s interest in proper education for his son, where he argued about how inhumane corporal punishments towards students was, described the physical cruel some abuse many students received and favored private tutoring as a better form of education and the importance of physical education. After Westminster Locke attended Christ Church, Oxford, where he found himself being “unstimulated” as the curriculum mainly focused on Aristotle and his philosophy and left out new philosophers and their ideas unteachable. However, that did not stop Locke from reading and learning about Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and many other philosophers who were not in his curriculum; he proceeded to obtain his bachelor’s degree and stayed for his masters. Locke then stayed at Christ Church and for 3-4 years taught Greek, rhetoric, and moral philosophy but that wasn’t fulfilling or pleasant for him but after some readings on Descartes, his “relish of philosophical things,” and the Royal Society at Oxford he began experimenting and studying about chemistry, medicine and meteorology. In 1674 he then received a degree in medicine and although not qualified to practice as a doctor, he often did informally.

As Locke was growing up he made many prominent and important at-the-time friends, one of them being Lord Shaftesbury who had liver issues and Locke once operated on him at a medical emergency. Shaftesbury then thought of Locke as his life savior and invited him to his household where Locke joined as an advisor, medic, and helped in government jobs. However, Shaftesbury then fell in trouble and had to flee the country and Locke did too as he thought that his former friendship with Shaftesbury and his anti-royalist beliefs were too compromising for his own life. Therefore Locked fled to France for nearly four years (1675–79), spending much time in Paris and Montpellier; and later returned to England but The Earl was killed and Shaftesbury and Locke fled again but to Holland in 1683. The reason why they both were fleeing was that Shaftsbury was the founder of the Whig Party, “which pushed for constitutional monarchism and stood in opposition to the dominant Tories,” which Locke supported and believed in. Locke then return to England in 1688 during the reign of William and Mary, with the Whigs in power and the balance of power being moved from the throne to Parliament which made him be welcomed as a hero. As a prominent member of the Whig Party, Locke worked in governmental affairs, helped steer the resurrection of the Board of Trade with North America, and served as a key member of the party until October 28, 1704, when he died in Essex never having been married or had any children of his own with the company of his friend Lady Damaris reading him from Psalms.

Going back, while Locke studied medicine he associated himself with Robert Hooke with who he worked on Before Memex: Robert Hooke, John Locke, and Vannevar Bush on External Memory; where they studied the limits of individual memory. He later formed the “Experimental Philosophy Club,” along with John Wilkins, Christopher Wren, and Robert Boyle. Additionally, some of John Locke’s works include: Essays on the Law of Nature (1676), Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Two Treatises of Government (1689), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693) and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695.)

For Locke on Essays on the Law of Nature (1676), in the state of nature all men are free ‘to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature… the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it”, and said law is what’s considered reasonable. I believe this to be true because it doesn’t set a limit to man’s action but enforces consequences. The fundamental Constitution of Carolina (1669) was a plan for organizing the colony of Carolina, drafted in 1669 by Anthony Ashley Cooper and John Locke. Its provisions included a scheme for creating a hierarchy of nobles who would own vast amounts of land and wield political power; below them would be a class of freedmen and slaves. The provisions were never implemented by the Carolina colonists. I like the formation of his idea but cannot agree with it as it still implemented the ownership of slaves. A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) was concerning Locke’s establishment of the separation of church and magistrate. If the two disagree, the question can be raised as to which has the final word. The magistrate should tolerate the Church fully, except for certain doctrines, treatises, etc. Further, the magistrate should tolerate any religion, except for one which tries to deny people their civil rights. In other words, the State may regulate religion if the religion is outwardly prejudiced against another man or his property. This work was written during his stay in Holland due to his association with other exiles and the issues his native country was going through in regards to religion. I think this letter is very thorough and although I want to say I approve of it I don’t because Locke also said Atheists can’t be tolerated, in a way limiting beliefs and the lack of them. Two Treatises of Government (1689) are works in which The First Treatise attacks monarchy for having absolute power and on the Second Treatise Locke summarizes his idea on a differently ordered society, in which there’s freedom for all but also political order. This work was done before he fled to Holland and based on England’s political situation at the time and the Glorious Revolution. This one is the one work I can genuinely say I like because even though it criticizes the government it also offers ideas on how to fix it, and how the monarchy wasn’t exactly a good idea which I also don’t stand for. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) consists of four volumes and its central idea is that all knowledge we obtain is derived from experience, I think that this is something I can agree with because of personal experiences of how I have learned from previous experiences in life lessons. These works of his were also written in Holland in regards to Scholastics, the existence of God, moral truths, and Plato’s philosophy. The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695) is where Locke shares his belief that we all have the ability to understand our purpose and we can obtain salvation from reading and learning about the Scriptures, for this one all I can say is that even though I’m not a religious person, I do believe we have the capability of understanding and finding our true purpose without having to pay someone else to tell us it.

Essentially all of Locke’s works have impacted politics from the Western World, England, and France. For example, it inspired The Glorious Revolution, The American Revolution, the writings of Voltaire, The writings of Rousseau, The French Revolution, Alexander Hamilton, and other founding fathers as to what a new nation should be, with no monarchy and separation of power from the government and church with the “freedom of life, liberty, and property. ” With the idea that people are not subject of a monarchy or the government but that the government works for the people and protects their rights, with people having the right to rebel (and moral obligation) against a government if it failed to protect and honor their rights. Of course, at his time his philosophies got him in trouble when the monarchy was still very much in power and Locke challenge the idea of a King’s appointment and right to reign, or with people who supported a monarchy or those with different religious beliefs, it got to a point when he had to flee his native country twice but those philosophies are the ones that make the very nation where I live and seem to be common sense for the society I live in.