Plato's Analogy of the Ship of Fools
Plato's analogy of the ship of fools is based on an experiment in which a mutiny on board a vessel occurred. Each crew member on this ship aspires to be captain, although they lack the requisite skills. As a result, the ship sails aimlessly, and even one of the crew members who may be able to steer the ship is ignored by the rest of the crew. Plato uses this comparison to describe why he criticizes democracy. Plato regards democracy as a tyranny of numbers and denounces group think.
Plato regards democracy as a tyranny of numbers and denounces groupthink. His main focus is on one main person he thinks can captain a ship. This implies that he does not agree with the idea that the majority bear the fruits of democracy, at least not in all occasions. In a political set up, Plato urges that the individual interests and performance of a politician can undermine political unity. Just as it can be depicted in the analogy of the ship of fools, Plato outlines that the governance of a state requires people with vast knowledge of crucial dockets like security, law, economy, and the military, amongst others, to rule a nation. He criticizes the idea of putting incompetent leaders at the helm of governance in the name of exercising democracy.
The Benefit of Political Participation to the State and its Citizens
Political participation leads to a good form of government. This is according to the beliefs of Mill, where he clarifies that when people participate in politics, the citizens gain the advantage of obtaining democracy. This implies that they get to decide who they work with, based on their preferences. Such a government will be representative in the sense that the citizens elect someone who goes to represent them in matters pertaining their interests. This also represents a democratic government since no one ascends to leadership through forcefully clinching power. Mill further explains that the state benefits from political participation because once there is a representative and democratic government, then people will be served to their expectations, and thus the state will have a chance to move forward. Public policy will be determined by the majority of people because it is a democratic government, unlike a dictatorial one that imposes policies on its citizens. This enhances the politics of a nation, thus the overall growth of the state.
Aristotle's View of a Demagogue and the Effect to Democracy
Aristotle views a demagogue as a charismatic leader who gains favor through exciting the passions of the people. Demagoguery, in his opinion, is the worst form of democracy because it makes the majority have the final say even at the expense of the law. Such a leader speaks with the voice of the audience, meaning that he says what pleases the people, and for that matter, they can do what they want as long as it excites the passions of the audience. This presents a huge limitation to democracy because what the leader is going to decide is only based on the excitement that people underwent which led them into agreeing with the opinions of their leader irrespective of how wrong the ideas may be. Aristotle's view of demagoguery is that everyone has a voice and they ought to be heard irrespective of the presence of the law. This is a threat to the democracy of a nation.
The Role of Bureaucracy in Fairness
Bureaucracy refers to the structures that are put in place in an organization to control the happening s of activities. Weber's theory of bureaucracy was a result of him noticing a new form of organization in western society that came up in the second half of the nineteenth century. According to Weber, this new organization outlined that authority and leadership were rational, and this was contrary to the previous years. Bureaucracy is critical in fairness because organizations that embrace it are governed by a set of rules that are formal, exhaustive, and explicit. This makes it difficult for any kind of unfairness to be witnessed because of the presence of the rules. There is a hierarchy in the structure of power and authority, and this guarantees the idea that activities will only be conducted by a person with the authority to carry them out. This, to a large extent, can help people practice fairness. Bureaucratic organizations have a systematic way of dividing labor. This helps a great deal in the sense that no one is expected to carry out duties that are not in line with what they are assigned because they can only be accountable for the tasks given to them. The chances of unfairness in such a scenario are slim.
Pareto's View of Universal Suffrage
Universal suffrage involves the rights of all people to vote except for a small percentage of adults who are considered mentally incapable of casting their votes. Pareto refers to universal suffrage as a myth because he believes it promotes corrupt and devious political skills. This is evident in activities like leaving out people who are of age and can vote, based on reasons that cannot be accounted for well. A good example is denying the mentally ill people the chance to vote. By law, this act is not right, and that is why Pareto views universal suffrage as a myth. Corrupt and devious political skills are what tarnish the image of democracy, and this makes Pareto believe that universal suffrage is a myth.
Spencer's View on Land Ownership
Spencer's work has often criticized land ownership. He argues from a point of view of his system of ethics, claiming the law offers freedom to every human being. According to Spencer's system of ethics, every man has the freedom to do what they want as long as they do not interfere with other people's similar rights up to the level they personally enjoy the freedom. He outlines that property in land is not a principle that governs equity. He explains this by stating that owning land is already an infringement in itself, of the law of freedom. Land ownership is denying other people their natural rights and it indicates an inequitable division of wealth, according to Spencer. He further explains that this amounts to the denial of the use of labor because when an individual is denied the use of land, then it means no laborer will be available to work on the land because it cannot be accessed in the first place. That is why he terms ownership of land as illegitimate.
Nozick's View of Locke's Theory of Property
Locke's theory of property is based on the unilateral appropriation of property. He argues that the rights of property have binding restrictions that are in relation to morals on other people. Locke tends to believe that these restrictions have a bigger authority than the normal social agreements people enter into when dealing with matters concerning property. He feels that his approach to the property rights justifies the appropriation-based procedure of the rights to property of an individual. Nozick, on the other hand, argues that the property rights of someone's knife allow them to leave it where they want to but not into another person's chest. This means that what someone owns belongs to them alone, and they can decide how to use it irrespective of other people's opinions. This is in line with Locke's explanation of the unilateral appropriation, which means that it is one-sided. This implies that the property rights of an individual solely affect them, and thus they are at liberty to decide how to go about their property.
Adam Smith's View of the Systems of Commerce
Adam Smith strongly believes that for the market participants to enjoy maximum benefit, the government should not intervene in the commerce systems. This is important because it is the self-interests that guide the market participants into making certain decisions that affect the overall economy. When the government interferes with commerce systems, it means that such decisions will be made based on what the authorities want and not the self-interests of the buyers and sellers. Governments can sometimes overrule the self-interests of the market players, and this is a major reason as to why the commerce systems take a different direction for the worse since the choices of people are no longer based on their interests. Smith, therefore, argues that it is important to understand that any law that has to be proposed should be handled with a lot of care because the effect regulation of the market has on the economy is enormous. Sectors like banking, however, can be regulated for the purposes of safeguarding the economy since money matters influence the rates of inflation and hence the choices of the market players.
Friedman's Opinion on Restrictions on Economic Activity
Friedman believes that when there are fewer restrictions, there will be a more open market. This is his main reason for advocating for a free market that does not undermine economic activity. He argues that the importance of imposing fewer restrictions is that the market will attain effective exchange freedom. It is this ability of the market players to transact with freedom that allows the economy to prevail. There cannot be anyone who interferes with other people's business if there is effective freedom to exchange the products and services in the market. Economic activity needs to have freedom because of the political state of a nation. Friedman explains that once there is economic freedom as a result of the market activity not being restricted, then the political freedom is also attained. A free market allows for the transfer of the control of the organization of economic activity from the political to the economic side.
Aesop's Fable
The main message that is being relayed herein is the experience of a day regarding survival, in relation to the ants and grasshoppers, which teaches a lesson of planning for the future and taking work seriously. Aesop's fable stipulates that a grasshopper does not go through a hard time when beginning its day. It flies out in the sun to eat and play music with its wings. It does not require carrying its food from point to another as it only eats it from the exact point the food is located. Contrary to the grasshopper, an ant has to find food by dragging itself in struggles. After that, it will be required to drag its food to a different location for consumption. All this happens during the summer, and the situation in winter changes. The grasshopper finds it difficult to find food, whereas the ant easily gets food during such kind of a season. The difference in hard work and preparation for the future between an ant and a grasshopper outlines the importance of balancing work and leisure.
Equal and Proportional Rights-Aristotle's View
Based on Aristotle's findings, equality refers to the creation of a ruling that is excellent in matters regarding moral character. Equal rights; therefore, implies that the moral value of the entitlement to property that exists amongst people applies to everyone with the same effectiveness. Aristotle elaborates that equality in rights is important for equal recognition. Proportional rights, on the other hand, are defined by Aristotle as the entitlement that has restrictions in the sense that there is a balance between the restriction and the benefit earned. This implies that the right being enjoyed should fit the person in question up to that particular point that a restriction is imposed. Proportional rights are significant especially when it comes to court cases that judges need to restrict certain rights from being enjoyed by a particular person.
Rawls' Principles of Justice
In his analysis, Rawls outlines two principles to explain justice. Equal liberty is one of the principled that he explained as "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all" (Rawls, 120). The basic liberties include the liberty of conscience and freedom of thought amongst others. Rawls' intention was to establish a platform that would ensure people enjoy equal rights and treatment. This, in his opinion, amounts to justice. He explains that the freedoms with ambiguity like that to do what pleases someone as long as they do not harm others are left to the legislator of the time to decide. The other principle of justice is social inequality, which he explains that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity." Rawls elaborates that the expected benefits in the second principle are subject to a measure of the individual holdings that are expected of the primary social goods (Rawls, 72).
Robert Nozick's Entitlement Theory
Nozick came up with the theory of entitlement to outline the shortcomings of distributive justice. According to Robert, the justification of a distribution is dependent on how it comes about. However, in current times, the justice distribution is determined by what people have. The theory of entitlement has three major principles that act as its pillars. There is the principle of justice in acquisition which focuses on how people own property and how things that can be owned. The second is the principle of justice in transfer which outlines holdings from another person. The third principle, which is that of rectifying injustices, helps to work out the issues that come along with holdings that are obtained or transferred unfairly. Nozick puts emphasis on the first two principles, stressing that they would be ideal if the world was purely just (Lamont, 34).
Works Cited:
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009.
