There Were Many Philosophers Throughout The Enlightenment Period. Some

There were many philosophers throughout the Enlightenment period. Some of these great thinkers shared similar views on related ideas, others differed completely. I personally agreed most with John Locke's philosophies. Locke was born in 1632 and died in 1704. His works concerned human nature, how the structure of a society should be set up, and other issues to that effect. Locke's philosophies and books are all applicable to our society today and some of our country's political foundations are based on his notable philosophies. I agree with his reasoning on why an absolute monarchy is no form of a civil government. I believe that the people who make the decisions for their country are their country and that ?the people' should have equal power and all be on the same level socially and politically. Like Locke, I believe that a superior to judge between right and wrong and to punish those who do wrong is absolutely necessary, yet the power should be in the hands of the people and not a monarch. Before the enlightenment, both secular and religious worlds were in a power struggle and became extremely corrupt, proving that ?absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Locke stated "...and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders" (Civil Society). I have no doubt that to have structure and a judicial system in a society is essential and without it there would be complete and utter chaos. I also agree with Locke on the subject of why a civil society is better and more productive then living in the state of nature. Locke's "state of nature" was a state of liberty, and all people were considered equal, but there was no authority to enforce the law which I believe to be greatly problematic. Without laws or government, a state or country is bound to be inextricable and completely disorganized which are not good conditions. With such disagreeable circumstances the people are bound to fight with one another and act bestial causing the overall conditions of the state to worsen even more. Locke philosophized that a civil state should be formed for three significant reasons; an established law was needed, authority to judge right from wrong according to the established law, and a power to"back and support the sentence when right and give it due execution" (Why Form a Civil Society). I find these three reasons to be substantive in our society today and without those factors our society would be in a disordered situation where nothing functions correctly and all people are corrupt.

Effectively Governing the Masses †Government (300 Level Course)

Effectively Governing the Masses – Government (300 Level Course) Free Online Research Papers Effectively Governing the Masses Government (300 Level Course) From the dawn of our great country of America there has been much debate as to the most effective way to govern the masses. Thomas Jefferson and his band of Anti-Federalists believed in a non aristocratic way of government. He believed in a system made up of many independent local governments that ruled in favor of its surrounding inhabitants. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Alexander Hamilton and his group called the Federalists, believed that the masses were not capable of managing themselves and a more centralized and powerful governmental agency should be established to rule. As time continued, these two groups became known as Republicans and Democrats. I find it funny that to this day, we as a people of the United States are still debating the same issue of top heavy government versus smaller, more independent machines. The difference between state and federal law can easily be seen in the recent case of Terri Shiavo. The state of Florida and the Federal Government disagreed on the important issue of Terri’s right to live. The state of Florida inevitably won the fight and Terri died almost two weeks after her feeding tube was removed, this propagates many questions about the differences between federal and state law making. The dissension amongst state and federal law making can not only be seen in ethical and morality issues such as the Shiavo case, but it is also very prevalent in employment law. In the paragraphs below I will discuss some of the differences between state and federal law as well as provide a specific example of a law that is noticeably different between state and federal mandates. Due to the ground work set by Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists, the architecture of the United States legal system lends itself to much freedom on the side of the state legislators. State law makers are voted into position by the men and women who ideally share the same personal ideas and morals as they do. This procedure allows for communities to elect officials that will look out for the individuals in their own towns and cities. In short, ideally the laws put in place by local governments are customized to suit the individuals that live in that community. The federal government does not posses the ability to make such specific regulations, therefore, it is up to the state governments to customize their own laws to their populations. A perfect example of how states can protect employees differently than the federal government is in benefits granted to employees of the state of Vermont versus the minimal federal requirements. The state of Vermont offers a list of minimal benefits to it’s work force that substantially supercedes the federal governments. For example, the federal minimum wage minimum is $5.15; the minimum wage for Vermont is $7.00, a vast increase over the federal minimum. Another protection that the state of Vermont shields it’s work force with is the mandate on random drug testing. Vermont does not allow random drug testing of employees without certain stipulations in place first. The federal government is much more lenient with employers who condone drug testing of its staff. In certain cases, the federal and local governments can have a difference of opinion on the same topic. In these cases, the ruling is in favor of the law that best benefits the individual and not the employer. This is an example of the further deprecation of the Federal Governments power of influence. Take for example the federal minimum wage. In an example stated above, Vermont’s state minimum is much higher than that of the federal governments. In this case, all employees in that state make a minimum that coincides with Vermont’s minimum, not the Federal Government. Research Papers on Effectively Governing the Masses - Government (300 Level Course)Quebec and CanadaThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationNever Been Kicked Out of a Place This NiceComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoMoral and Ethical Issues in Hiring New EmployeesResearch Process Part One19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraPETSTEL analysis of IndiaAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeTwilight of the UAW