Tyranny vs. monarchy
One cannot accurately define monarchy versus tyranny. It is a matter of personal opinion. This opinion is based on fundamental ideals and values that an individual has formed throughout his life. monarchy becomes a tyranny when the monarchy has lost the sincere desire for the happiness for the population. Now, the road to achieving happiness is conceptually different in almost every culture. The concept of happiness in America is a big house, fast cars, seventy-two inch plasma flat-screen with the bling-bling. This is not the version of happiness prevalent in many collectivist societies. Radical Muslims loath America for being tyrannical capitalists. At which form of influence on Dahl's scale does one label a persuasive action as tyrannical? At what point does imposing a majority view on a minority become tyrannical? These questions have to be gauged by societal and cultural standards. Nations have a penchant for being very narrow-minded when viewing other leaders. Societies ten
When the monarchy, knowingly and willingly, no longer rules in the interest of the population that has legitimized it, it has crossed the line into tyranny. Such is the course of history in many cases. For example, many Americans value individualistic ideals and some will see a communist state as tyrannical. The world as nearly a whole found it inconceivable such atrocities could be committed by man. The genuine desire for the society to prosper is essential for the legitimacy of government. Each case must be looked at by an individual, and based on his or her moral reasoning, a logical conclusion must be formed . Is the monarch a tyrant if he sincerely believes through his twisted logic that obvious destructive atrocities are benefiting his people? Interesting. A monarchy, however checked and balanced it may be, has always led to tyranny and eventually revolution. Individual leader's psychological chemical imbalances may interfere with their ability to reason and therefore cause them to rule out of paranoia which historically ends destructively. The masses have the natural right to take the sovereignty back as Locke defends . Other cases have good arguments on both sides of the spectrum. When that line is crossed and the population believes the government to be tyrannical, then the government loses legitimacy. Also he may be protecting the fragile society that could collapse if authority and legitimacy are threatened further . However, on the flip side of the coin, there are universal principals that set boundaries to protect people from their own tyrants when the atrocities of these tyrants warrant this protection.
Common topics in this essay:
Radical Muslims,
Adolf Hitler,
,
government tyrannical,
|
Acceptance Essays
