Two Ruler Mozzi Summary

It is because of this reason that the author does not believe in absolute monarchies. However, he does believe that limited monarchies can be compatible with freedom.

This is something all of these monarchs believed because all of them took the time to consider how powerful they were and it’s one of the many reasons why they were as successful as they were. Louis XIV as King of France was basically the most powerful person in Europe as France was the most powerful nation. Although he saw himself as the most powerful person in France, Louis XIV took into account the way that the nobles and others might rebel and limited their power accordingly. Had he not done this he might not have ruled for as long as he did. Peter the Great also considered himself an extremely powerful man. Due to this he disguised himself as a regular person so that he could mingle with the regular people. Him taking the time to consider how powerful he was he might not have learned all of the things he did while in disguise and would not have been such a great ruler. Tokugawa Ieyasu considered himself to be extremely powerful but still realized that he wasn’t powerful to the point where the daimyo would not eventually rebel so he invented ways to make sure that the daimyo were completely loyal and obedient. If he had considered all possibilities Japan might not have been as peaceful as it was for as long as it was.

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

By decision making by representatives of the people, rather than direct decision making by the people themselves. These elite representatives would be expected to use their prudence and wisdom to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the masses. (pg. 7)

In a turmoil world, it has become important to know and understand the operations of the government and the ruler. Nowadays, some people are living in the democratic society and they have right to talk freely. However, some people are living in the dictatorial society and they do not have freedom. In the past, we all lived in the monarchical authority. As time goes by, we have our world with two kind’s authority which related to Machiavelli’s and Jefferson’s ideas. There are some similarities and some difference between them.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute

While Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli are both pieces of work that serve as ground rules or guidelines for a ruler on how to rule a country, the two authors’ prepositions vary tremendously. One author takes on a susceptible viewpoint, while another takes on a much more conservative outlook. There are many factors as to why they differ so much. Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both provide intricate structures as to how rulers should run their state, there are extreme differences between the two.

While there are mentions of other scholars and works mentioned in his paper, the purpose of them lacks full supplementation for his paper, as he only uses the scholars as a brief mention rather than build upon their arguments. However, despite my critique on his broad theoretical concepts of domination, his beginning definition of the “three pure types of authority” (2) did help in establishing his a convincing argument that engaged with historical and contextual concepts of domination. Specifically when breaking down rational, traditional, and charismatic “grounds” of authority, he is careful to clarify each ground through its “establish belief” or example that is easy for the reader to understand and also apply their own knowledge too. While he doesn’t use specific examples from books or other documents that could add more validity to his argument, his broader concepts work as a good supplementation for a future research paper (3). The larger problem of this again is the interpretive claim, which counters any solidifying argument of Webbers claims.

“The King can do no wrong (Chang, 2007).” Arguably, ancient governments ruled by royalty can be

This 18th chapter, “Of Tyranny”, is a summary of the differences between legitimate and illegitimate power. Civil society exists to protect the property and liberty of its members--if something breaks down anywhere in its government and it no longer fulfills this function, something has gone crooked and the people have a right to free themselves of that government. A ruler who exercises legitimate power observes the laws of the government and understands that the people gave him the power they possess. This ruler seeks to preserve the public good, honor the trust between himself and his people, and protect people’s property. A ruler who exercises illegitimate power is called a tyrant; he breaks the bonds of trust and acts outside the law.

In this paper, it is my intention to discuss the issue of legitimacy as it relates to government. I will explore what a legitimate government necessarily consists of; that is, I will attempt to formulate a number of conditions a government must meet in order to be considered legitimate.

‘The Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning about the order of justice, the order and character of just men and just city/states. The Republic is considered as the best known work of Plato and is considered one of the world’s most influential works of politics, history and philosophy. In this Socratic dialogue, Socrates discusses about the notions of justice and whether the just man is very happy when compared with his unjust, Athenian and foreign counterparts. Socrates considers the various facets of the existing regimes and proposes a series of hypothetical cities that are entirely different from his considerations. Such heated discussions result in the culmination of discussing kallipolis, a hypothetical city-state that was ruled by a philosopher king. In this paper, we are going to consider Socrates arguments about democracy by examining whether the concept of democracy always remains inconsistent with philosophical goals.

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone

The just exercise of political power is conceived of as resting upon constitutional principles. Constitutional principles are a position from which we operate justly. However, what constitutes as just? Throughout history political power derived from many historical foundations that were deemed just based on the society that upheld those principles. This notion is evident throughout the development of constitutional doctrines in Greek democracy, Aristotle’s political theory, Roman Republicanism, and English Constitutionalism.

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its