christi corpus Christi Corpus Americas Unidas
Related Topics:
Corpus Christi
christi corpus
Texas
hotels
catholic
san diego
church corpus christi
freightliner
corpus christi texas
city of corpus christi
commercial
news
reviews
attractions
parts
weather
entertainment
duty
travel
sea
hotel
photos
trucks
libraries
Coastal Bend
service
library
restaurants
vacation
work
networking
medium
friends
municipal
beach
trucking
inn
Corpus Christi hotels
rail cargo
pacific
inter coastal
city
oil refinery
oil
Christi
intracoasal waterway
palisades
ratings
corpus christi bay
Corpus
meat storage
meetings
map
discount
online
railroad
port of corpus christi
cold storage
refinery
coastal waterway
reservation
port
inland waterway
united states
sports
foreign trade
storage
texas travel
highway
dock
dockside
advice
gulf coast
the port of corpus christi
barge
trade
trade zone
truck cargo
u.s.
food storage
|
Christi Corpus Americas Unidas christi corpus
.
Christi Corpus Americas Unidas christi corpus Information
During Machiavelli's time, society was much different than it had been
for previous philosophers. Instead of storing up good works, so as to enjoy
paradise, as the medieval man did, the Renaissance man was interested in all
things, enjoyed life, strove for worldly acclaim and wealth, and had a deep
interest in classical civilizations. Machiavelli thought that classical
tradition was wrong in its understanding to humans, and argued that human
personality is divided between a part that is self interested and a part that
wants to live kindly with others. Because the natural human nature of people
wants to be divided and because people are socialized, socialization he claims,
can make the part that is self-interested become dominant. This then leads
people to want power. And because of this, in Machiavelli's eyes, we cannot have
a completely good society based on the fact that because the worst, most
self-interested people always rise to the top therefore the rulers of a society
are going to be the worst.
Knowing this will happen, Machiavelli feels that
the only feasible way of preventing them from being highly oppressive is to
construct a society that decreases exploitation and increases the general well
being of the people. In Machiavelli's The Prince, he shows that the really
intelligent ruler or prince will find it in his own self-interest to treat the
people well. He would do this because the common people are not the threat to
him because they are just peasant workers, rather the nobles are the most
threatening because they feel that they are just as good if not better than the
prince himself. So what Machiavelli is saying here is that if the prince acts in
his own self-interest and kills the nobles who are trying to seize his power, it
helps the people because the nobles won't oppress them anymore. This means that
the nasty ruler that acts for his self-interest of staying in control , will be
doing good for the people.
The question Machiavelli asks in The Discourses
is knowing that the worst people will rise to the top, how do you prevent them
from exploiting everyone else? He says that the common people can't do it, but
with the divisions among powerful people both competing for the same thing,
power, they will fight each other. This will then lead to some common people
gaining power down the road and is known as checks and balances and the
separation of powers.
Oddly enough, the prince that Machiavelli proposes,
one whose stature is very attainable, as opposed to the unattainable ideal, has
a more difficult job. He must present an appearance of greatness, composed of
every awesome quality that would be desired in a ruler, yet where those of
society cannot see him he is to be evil and manipulative. This goes against all
that has been said about a ruler who needs to be tempered in the virtues of
courage, justice, and wisdom in order to rule. Instead, Machiavelli tells of the
idea of a real, but not highly regarded ruler who disregards all morals for the
sake of gaining profit and power. In other words, he is a ruler who is highly
self interested.
Thomas Hobbes would freely choose to create a horrible
dictatorship. His reasoning behind this was a basis from the state of nature
where there is no government at all. There would be no social structures and
people would be free to create any type they would seem fit for their own
self-interests. He then tells of what he is getting at by saying this. He says
that we would be absolutely terrified because we would all realize that there
are no laws or police to protect us and that we live in a world of scarcity and
people compete with each other for prestige. Then his initiates that every
thoughtful person would realize that and that the only way out is to create a
government that controls everyone.
Safety is the one thing people need and
without it, they can't live or can't work. Hobbes argues what we fundamentally
need is protection. To get this, we must make laws and we must have people to
enforce them. We can't get any of these until we have a government. Hobbes
states that the government must be a totalitarian. Although this type of
government doesn't give complete safety because the ruler could kill whoever he
wanted, it does give more safety than before where anybody could go around and
kill anybody else just because. That because was mostly based on competition for
power and for the rights to property.
The question Locke answers is why
would people in a state of nature decide on a limited government rather than
Hobbes' totalitarian government? He says that if we had no government, we would
choose one within reason to have limited powers for our rights.
The
characteristics of such a government include individualism, the ability to have
protection to people's natural rights to life, liberty and property, and the
government would have limited powers and have capitalism. This type of
government would be designed to protect people against material scarcities and
oppressive and arbitrary governments. He claims that a liberal society is not
the best society, it is only the best society humans can obtain given peoples
vested interests. Locke says that capitalism is the most effective way to
produce the least amount of material scarcities and liberal government is most
realistic solution against oppressiveness. As reasonable people, we would
recognize that other reasonable people could be trusted. We would also agree
that there must be a God.
He says that we too would recognize that we must
have been put on here for a purpose, and if so then we have a duty to preserve
our own lives and we also have a duty to preserve the lives of others. And we
cannot do so, unless we are all free to do so. This then would lead everyone to
believe that they have a god given right to life and liberty. And because these
rights can't be given away, nobody can create a government to take these rights
away. So, the only legitimate form of rule is a rule that does not violate
people's natural rights.
Locke says not only can we create any type of
government we want, we can also create any type of economy as well. This would
lead to a capitalist economy because in state of nature, everybody is equal. In
the beginning everybody would get equal ownership of land and recognize that
private ownership to means of production is a natural right of liberty thus a
natural right of property. We have a right to preserve ourselves and in order to
do this we must eat, and to do this we must cultivate our land but won't unless
we all have the right to what we produce. Although anybody can produce on his or
her land, not everybody can. This then leads to inequalities because people will
sell their land to someone who can produce in turn for food or money. This means
someone will have more land than anybody else, but this inequality reduces
amount of scarcity and benefits everybody. Locke concludes this by saying that
reasonable people would create money even though it creates inequality. He then
claims that it would be legitimate because it is in everybody's good because it
utilizes human beings self-nature to create wealth for everybody.
Adam smith
goes along with Locke and says that under proper conditions, capitalism is more
efficient that any other possible economic arrangement. Everyone benefits and
all the inequalities are justified and legit. He mentions proper conditions, and
without thee capitalism is inefficient. People are often more hurt than helped
and inequalities are illegitimate, unfair and oppressive.
The proper
conditions include a well-regulated, competitive market where individual
self-interest and individual greed has to work for the welfare of the community.
There is competition for products and workers and always the need for greater
profit while outselling the other competitors. He claims that if someone creates
a better product that benefits society, the resulting inequality is good for
those that deserve it. This increases better working conditions for workers of
the companies as well as higher pay, so indeed everybody does benefit.
|
