Generally most skilled and most influential would take the

Generally speaking, an aristocracy government is a
group of people in a society that hold power, wealth, titles and offices in the
government and upon their death, their children claim these rights. In the time
of the ancient Greeks aristocracy was often compared and contrasted to a
monarchy ruled by one, or an oligarchy ruled by a few the Athenian system of
the Aristocracy was coupled with the Athenian system of democracy ruled by the people.
In a direct democracy, each citizen would vote on every decision be going to
war with a neighboring city-state or what the price of wheat should be one can
imagine how the system of government isn’t very efficient. So, the system of
the Aristocracy has naturally formed the citizens were the most active, most
skilled and most influential would take the place of the representatives of the
people then these citizens would raise their children to have the same talents
and abilities States craft as them, creating a hereditary system. This is a
very important point that may be one of the biggest downsides of this system.
The power of government is passed from father to son and so on that means if
the father is a great statesman and neglects to teach his son the importance of
justice prudence, the common people may suffer for it. That being said
aristocracy worked for Greece.

 

Communism on its face as in on the surface seems like
a great idea. It could be argued that its intent was to have all goods and
services shared equally have control in the hands of the people, rather than a
ruling elite eliminating poverty and eliminate the upper class.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

What makes communism so wrong is that it really is
nothing but a form of altruism and collectivism. As it gives priority to the
group or society rather than the individual. Communism denies and opposes the
right to private property, which is thus an attack on human freedom. To attack
a renounce human freedom is wrong which is one of the main reasons why
communism is wrong. But, it’s actually worse than that because communism
opposes private property rights. It fundamentally entails enslavement of the
people because when property and wealth are playing to the hand of society as a
whole independence is lost as the fruits of one’s efforts are taken from you
and given to the community. Once work and production are sacrificed to the
society, rather than belonging to the worker. Sacrifice directly tell’s the
need for coercion and force. As sacrifices counter to human nature and survival
and thus usually produces resistance and unrest. This is why communist
countries often have so much suffering misery and killing because communism is
fundamentally based on the evil ethics of altruism and collectivism. This is
because the individuals’ production of wealth is not allowed to be their own
but is rather taken from them and they don’t have control of what they earned
and thus they have to sacrifice for others and sacrifice for the group.
Communism also entails the sacrifice of an individual man’s mind to the group,
since the group’s needs come first, and the group as a whole gets an equal
share of the wealth produced. This sacrifices man’s mind by forcing him to have
to give up his creativity or innovation for the benefit of others and society
at his expense. This is also why communism stifles and stagnate wealth there is
little to no motivation to create or achieve if no matter how hard you work, or
how brilliant you are you still will only get an equal share with someone who
didn’t work as hard or didn’t innovate as well or is it as brilliant as you. Your
individuality is sacrificed to the group your creativity is sacrificed to the
group and that is collectivism. Which on a singular level is altruism, as you
are then as an individual sacrificing what you value or have to others at your
expense. Communism is wrong because it entails collectivism and altruism and
boils down to an attack on human rights and freedom. And when freedom and
rights are violated or taken away repression and force are almost always needed
because man cannot be expected to go very long sacrificing himself for the sake
of others this runs counter to self-interest and thus counter to survival and
happiness which is why so many communist regimes have failed.

 

John Locke is a classical liberal meaning that he
believes that humans by nature are self-interested and rational as opposed to self-interested
and irrational. Because of this Locke argues for in the state of nature,
because we are rational we will be able to work out for ourselves how best to
live our lives, and what life will benefit us for most. There will be enough
resources to go around and satisfy everyone and in the most part we will live a
good and peaceful life. However, because we are self-interested. Locke says we
will impose on the freedoms of others or break what he calls the law of nature.
The law of nature is a set of natural rights that Locke says all humans should
have. The law of nature states that no person may subordinate another or harm his
or her life, health, liberty or possessions. Furthermore, Locke argues that we
should help one another when doing so does not cause harm to others. Without a
government we would have to enforce the law of nature ourselves. However this
is going to lead to problems because we won’t be able to give fair punishments
without being bias. If we deal the punishments ourselves, then what is there to
stop us from confusing punishment with revenge. And to severely punish those we
hate. And the same could be said for the other way around, what is there to
stop us not punishing those we like and are friends with. Furthermore,
punishments may be hard to carry out. For example if a thief steals from me and
I go to punish him, there is nothing stopping the thief from ganging up and
taken back revenge on me. The only way that I could then Stop is to get an even
more powerful force to go and punish his gang. In this scenario you just may just
leave the thief get away with it and not go through the hassle to punish him. Because
of this Locke says that there needs to be a government that acts like a judge
dealing justice without implementing bias. And this is as much power that the
state should be allowed to have. any more power such as trying to introduce
laws on to businesses and individuals, this would limit liberty and be unjust. But
is having liberty and freedom a good faith. Conservatives such as Thomas Hobbes
and Patrick Devlin have previously challenged him on this issue and would
strongly disagree. Patrick Devlin says to imagine what it would be like if we
allowed half of the population of a state to get drunk every night. It would be
horrible says Devlin, many people would not turn up to work in the morning
because of the hangovers they have, health services would be for people with
alcohol-related problems and the streets at night would be chaotic since
everyone is drunk and Unsociable. therefore, Devlin and other conservatives
argue that governments need to impose strict rules, as well as sort out
disputes over the state in order to keep law and order, and make sure its
subjects are under control. Locke’s response was that by saying that “freedom
is a good thing, since, by allowing people to be free and live an autonomous
life. Certain troops and knowledge will be uncovered for example by letting
people be free and therefore choose to get drunk every night, the truth by
getting drunk every night is not good for society will be uncovered. Therefore,
meaning that people mutually agree not to get drunk every night”. If laws are
in place to stop people from trying out new ways of life, then certain truths
are being denied from being found out. It may be the case that life and society
would be better if half of the population got drunk every night the only way to
find out according to Locke is to let people try it out for them elves and back
because they are rational they all choose the correct and best life that will
benefit them the most.