The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Introduction
In today’s world, the relationship between Citizens and states vary. This is because each state has sovereign power. This is the reason why they can be able to formulate policies that affect their people. In some countries, the relationship between citizens and state is so hostile. There is no freedom of expression. Some are even assassinated for trying to air out the vices witnessed in society. The current way of the relationship between citizens and the state has no much difference compared to the old days since people elect their leaders. In a democratic environment, people are free to elect their leader. This essay will highlight the interaction of citizens and the states. It will cite different authors who had different opinions on the interactions of citizens and the state.
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
The Prince by Machiavelli was one of the first great critics of the way political power is achieved and maintained. Contrary to humanistic ideals at the time of its publication, Machiavelli had a very radical and almost bestial idea of the role of human nature in government. Machiavelli distorts the boundaries between natural terms in humans and animals. The human-animal comparison that was relevant to ancestral practice included assessments of strength, hard work, and even altruism, which were obvious and extremely worthy of human recognition. It then reflects the principles of governance as a whole. However, Machiavelli uses his comparisons differently, often referring to them, arguing that a wise prince “falls into both natures again” and logically is not unknown or similar, which is already rooted in nature as “human.” “He enforces laws and violence on animals,” he says, “but because it is often inappropriate to practice law, it makes sense to resort to violence.”
From this point of view, Machiavelli suggests that a successful governor should be able to use those who govern in the sense that ultimate authority is the most successful form of government. Machiavelli also expounds the idea that a prince can also deceive those who wish to congratulate him or those under his rule. By choosing brilliant men for his administration and giving freedom of expression to citizens in fields where or in what questions in which they ask for their advice, but nothing else can create a sense of unity for the government but govern themselves.
The main theme that Machiavelli wanted to highlight was how the prince treated his people. The prince never wanted any criticism, and anyone who criticized him was seen as the political enemy of the kingdom. Their many ways in which citizens interact with the state. They offer advice on areas they feel that the state is oppressing them. This is the reason why each state has a member who is representing a particular community. The author also highlights the importance of unity rather than the prince secluding other people.
In the Duty of Civil Disobedience
The main theme of civil disobedience is civil government and superior justice. Thoreau opens civil disobedience by saying “this government is the best government” and speaks of a government that does not interfere with human life. The article makes it clear that the government rarely shows its benefits to the people, but follows a majority that takes a legitimate position. He argues that a person should keep thinking before comparing the guidelines set by the majority. However, according to Thoreau, in most cases, the government has obtained its legitimate majority powers and is subject to abuse. Thoreau also claims that the United States meets its criteria of unfair government because it supports submission and its routine in the context of the energy war.
One subtheme that supports the main theme of the duty of civil disobedience is the right to resist. The example illustrated the big problem when Thoreau confirmed that people should maintain the support of a government that has imposed unfair laws. Although deeply depressed by the US government, he did not advocate pure anarchy. Instead, Thoreau argues that the individual must follow his conscience. He also added that those who opposed slavery during the Mexican War should avoid paying taxes to the government because their income is consistent. Thoreau’s main objective in the article “Civil Disobedience” is not to undermine the role of democracy but to strengthen the value of freedom and respect for people.
A second subtheme that deals with major problems are laws and moral conscience that go beyond political laws. The law of morality is an issue that has been presented throughout the article. According to Henry, an individual’s conscience is more important than the legal rules set by the government. According to Thoreau, he denies any interest in abolishing the government but wants a better government. He says most laws are based on physical force, not justice. It confirms that the conscience of the individual should govern and that the government should exercise its power over issues requiring majority rule. Civil disobedience is a fundamental expression of human conscience and molarity that seeks to unite people and the state. Although Thoreau supports democracy, he generally does not agree to resolve injustices using majority rule.
Politics and the English Language
George Orwell writes about the link between language and thought. He explains that writing today contains fewer and fewer words for their meaning and more sentences and how Orwell “brings them together as parts of a prefabricated chicken coop.” That said, people are working hard today to improve writing for their readers, even if they don’t understand them, rather than writing what they hear for fear of boring thoughts. Some may call this writing “fluff” because it makes writing more attractive, although its rise may change the meaning of the point at which the writer is dealing. There are many types of writing, such as how critics inform their readers about theatrical or artistic performances, poetry, comedy, and music. Orwell points out that political writers are not fooled by their writings, but move on because it is very difficult for readers to write how they really think and how widely publicized. And sometimes exchanges tell a different story than one should have told.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the old system of governments was more discriminatory compared to today’s government. People can be able to air out their freedom of expression without fear of being intimidated. This shows a positive relationship with the state. The authors above had a varied opinion on how the state should treat its citizens. Some were in support while others though the government should engage them when making policies to ensure there is peace.