Aristotle

Aristotle thought that in a good government every class should be represented. he thought that a strong government should have a middle class that is in control and out numbers the other classes. If Aristotle saw Howard Chandler Christy's painting of the signing of the Constitution he probably would have a lot to say about it. He would see that all the men in the painting are not middle or lower class but rich because of the way they are dressed and the wigs they are wearing. Aristotle would be upset about the painting because he thinks it's wrong for only one class to be represented. When looking at Christy's painting, Aristotle would probably think that the government they are forming is oligarchy not democracy. In the painting the Constitution is being decided by a small group of people and all classes are not represented. In Aristotle's opinion, the upper class, middle class, and lower class should be represented to be called democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFW8GE9D1s

 

Make a comparison between Elizabeth Cady Stanton's declaration and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson and Stanton's declarations are very similar. Both declarations are written mostly about the equality and natural rights that man should already possess and should never have taken away. Stanton's declaration was mostly based off of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and was accepted by the Seneca Falls Convention in July of 1848. Jefferson's declaration was more focused on rights against the British and to keep them from continuing their unjust actions. However, Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions is more focused on women's rights such as women have as equal rights as a citizen, what she wants to say, and any property or wage a woman earns she gets to keep. 

What risks did Elizabeth Cady Stanton take writing her declaration? Why did she take these risks?

In the eighteen hundreds writing something for women's rights was not something that was expected or for that matter accepted especially when written by a woman. Writing Stanton's declaration was a gamble whether it would be recognized as it should or if it would be ignored because it was such a radical idea that a woman should not be thinking much less writing. She risked social and public exile not that she would be executed but she would not be socially excepted. It turns out that her declaration is, in fact, recognized and accepted even though it was against the social expectancy.

Henry Thoreau: Civil Disobedience

Henry Thoreau: Civil Disobedience

Henry Thoreau views toward the government was to have less government which is a lot like Lao-Tzu. Thoreau's famous quote, "That government is best which governs least." In Thoreau's opinion if there is too much government the people being governed will become no more than slaves. Thoreau believed that going against the government was the best way to get a better government for the future. He also believed that it was mans obligation or duty to be against the unjust laws by the government. Thoreau's view for the best form of patriotism was to resist and stand up against any immoral laws. He also felt, like Lao-Tzu, that the government was not a helping factor but more of a hindrance. Thoreau was more toward the individual than a large group and he thought it disgraceful if everyone didn't feel the same. Machiavelli would've strongly disagreed for he thought the government should control everything and make sure everything that needs to happen in society happened.  

 

 

Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, and Machiavelli

Rousseau was very particular in the social contract on how the government should be run. In the social contract which was never finished went against the French monarchy of his age. Rousseau believed that government should always be changing. Government should not control it's people but should make sure the people know that they are not alone. To please Rousseau there is no such government exists. Government has not evolved as needed for any governed place.

Machiavelli unlike Rousseau was all about force, the people would always know that the government was there. Machiavelli wanted to rule not just govern the people and he would do anything he say necessary, no matter how unsociably excepted. In Jefferson's Declaration it says roughly that if there is an injustice you should be able to do what you think is right to correct it for independence. When it comes to war, civil disorder, injustice, and death how the Declaration treats them depends on the circumstances. Jefferson in his mind justified the means but everything was equal and can be changed. Jefferson would've not liked Machiavelli's advice. For Machiavelli was about the government making most decisions but for Jefferson people could chose for themselves.

                                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ09XudWg_8

                                         

  

Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu on how a government should be run.

These two philosophers and writers have very different views on how to govern a country. Lao-Tzu had a very non- violent and very passive perspective. Lao-tzu would rather please the public rather than force them to do something even if it would help them. He was all about pleasing the people and having the likable vote even if that meant doing nothing when they needed it. Whereas Machiavelli had a much more forceful view. He would rather push and push to get where he thought was right for the country. Unlike Lao-tzu, Machiavelli was not liked very much some even called him evil. For Machiavelli, force was the only way to run a country and the only way to keep from being overthrown.

In ways both of them had right and wrong points. To sit back is cowardly and being too forceful does nothing but start a mess. For Lao-Tzu letting people help themselves and seeing what will happen is one way to look at it. That’s the problem with being the perfect leader not everyone is going to be happy it’s hard to find the happy medium between helping and forcing when it comes to government. For Machiavelli helping people even when they don’t want help can seem forceful. He could’ve been trying to do what’s best for the people but they did not want help. That can seem controlling but there’s a fine line between them and he might have crossed that line but that’s all up to interpretation. There has been more good leaders that have died with infamy because the people didn’t want to be forced to do something even if it was better for them in the end. Machiavelli always for war and assembling the troops.