Ok, so after reading the introduction to A World of Ideas’ government section, I think I have a pretty good idea as to where the authors in the section are coming from. In the introduction, the author explains how 6 different philosophers/leaders felt about how a government should be ran. They basically focus on the different forms of government and its role in society.
Lao-tzu, for instance, believed in maintaining a happy citizenry. He believed that a government’s success depends entirely on good relationships between the leader and their people. Obviously, he had a great concern for the well-being of the people in a government. He also believed that the government didn’t always need to be involved with everything, and that the less it intervened, the happier the people would be.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, completely dismissed how the people felt, and stressed the importance of gaining and holding power at all costs. He feared that if he didn’t wield his power ruthlessly, he might lose his people to a more powerful nation, and that was the last thing he wanted.
Hannah Arendt was somewhat like Machiavelli, but he took things to the extreme. He believed in total dominion, and wanted to use terror to enforce the government’s ideas. He believed that individual rights should be sacrificed for the good of the nation, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson came along in the United States, and wanted to eliminate monarchies completely. He actually wanted to emphasize the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and, therefore, enforce the government’s obligation to protect those rights.
Whether these 3 leaders were correct in their own philosophy is arguable, but each of them expressed good points as to why theirs would work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you got a pretty good idea of each of the authors opinions about goverenment. In reference to your comment on Lao-Tzu I partially agree with his ideas that the goverenment she take a more hands free approach when it comes to certain issues. At the same time, I disagree with the complete hands off goverenment approach.
I think you did a pretty good job explaining the difference between Lao-tzu and Machiavali. Also you had a pretty good undertanding on a few leaders and gave good examples as to how they ruled.
Paul, you are slightly confused on a couple of points.
1. Hannah is a woman's name.
2. Arendt didn't like or promote totalitarianism. She was only describing it.
I also meant to add, that, except for those points, you understood it pretty well.
Post a Comment