Thus, in general this is a disheartening display for the future of freedom.
THOSE who have done me the honour of reading my previous writings will probably receive no strong impression of novelty from the present volume; for the principles are those to which I have been working up during the greater part of my life, and most of the practical suggestions have been anticipated by others or by myself.
There is novelty, however, in the fact of bringing them together, and exhibiting them in their connection; and also, I believe, in much that is brought forward in their support.
Several of the opinions at all events, if not new, are for the present as little likely to meet with general acceptance as if they were. It seems to me, however, from various indications, and from none more than the recent debates on Reform of Parliament, that both Conservatives and Liberals if I may continue to call them what they still call themselves have lost confidence in the political creeds which they nominally profess, while neither side appears to have made any progress in providing itself with a better.
Yet such a better doctrine must be possible; not a mere compromise, by splitting the difference between the two, but something wider than either, which, in virtue of its superior comprehensiveness, might be adopted by either Liberal or Conservative without renouncing anything which he really feels to be valuable in his own creed.
When so many feel obscurely the want of such a doctrine, and so few even flatter themselves that they have attained it, any one may without presumption offer what his own thoughts, and the best that he knows of those of others, are able to contribute towards its formation.
By some minds, government is conceived as strictly a practical art, giving rise to no questions but those of means and an end. Forms of government are assimilated to any other expedients for the attainment of human objects. They are regarded as wholly an affair of invention and contrivance.
Being made by man, it is assumed that man has the choice either to make them or not, and how or on what pattern they shall be made. Government, according to this conception, is a problem, to be worked like any other question of business.
The first step is to define the purposes which governments are required to promote. The next, is to inquire what form of government is best fitted to fulfil those purposes. Having satisfied ourselves on these two points, and ascertained the form of government which combines the greatest amount of good with the least of evil, what further remains is to obtain the concurrence of our countrymen, or those for whom the institutions are intended, in the opinion which we have privately arrived at.
To find the best form of government; to persuade others that it is the best; and having done so, to stir them up to insist on having it, is the order of ideas in the minds of those who adopt this view of political philosophy. They look upon a constitution in the same light difference of scale being allowed for as they would upon a steam plough, or a threshing machine.
To these stand opposed another kind of political reasoners, who are so far from assimilating a form of government to a machine, that they regard it as a sort of spontaneous product, and the science of government as a branch so to speak of natural history. According to them, forms of government are not a matter of choice.
We must take them, in the main, as we find them. Governments cannot be constructed by premeditated design. They "are not made, but grow.
The fundamental political institutions of a people are considered by this school as a sort of organic growth from the nature and life of that people: Their will has had no part in the matter but that of meeting the necessities of the moment by the contrivances of the moment, which contrivances, if in sufficient conformity to the national feelings and character, commonly last, and by successive aggregation constitute a polity, suited to the people who possess it, but which it would be vain to attempt to superduce upon any people whose nature and circumstances had not spontaneously evolved it.
It is difficult to decide which of these doctrines would be the most absurd, if we could suppose either of them held as an exclusive theory. But the principles which men profess, on any controverted subject, are usually a very incomplete exponent of the opinions they really hold.
No one believes that every people is capable of working every sort of institutions. Carry the analogy of mechanical contrivances as far as we will, a man does not choose even an instrument of timber and iron on the sole ground that it is in itself the best.
He considers whether he possesses the other requisites which must be combined with it to render its employment advantageous, and in particular whether those by whom it will have to be worked possess the knowledge and skill necessary for its management.
On the other hand, neither are those who speak of institutions as if they were a kind of living organisms really the political fatalists they give themselves out to be. They do not pretend that mankind have absolutely no range of choice as to the government they will live under, or that a consideration of the consequences which flow from different forms of polity is no element at all in deciding which of them should be preferred.
But though each side greatly exaggerates its own theory, out of opposition to the other, and no one holds without modification to either, the two doctrines correspond to a deep-seated difference between two modes of thought; and though it is evident that neither of these is entirely in the right, yet it being equally evident that neither is wholly in the wrong, we must endeavour to get down to what is at the root of each, and avail ourselves of the amount of truth which exists in either.
Let us remember, then, in the first place, that political institutions however the proposition may be at times ignored are the work of men; owe their origin and their whole existence to human will.Deputy ministers’ message. The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector was introduced by Treasury Board in April as an overarching guide for employees, to help them identify what is considered professional conduct for a public servant.
The Code applies to the entire public sector, including departments, crown corporations and separate agencies. All adult citizens of a country have the right to vote in a democracy. This vote is extremely important because it determines the kind of government that comes in power.
Name a few countries in the world which have a democratic form of government. The role of the citizens becomes extremely important in . regardbouddhiste.com has been an NCCRS member since October The mission of regardbouddhiste.com is to make education accessible to everyone, everywhere.
Students can save on their education by taking the regardbouddhiste.com online, self-paced courses and earn widely transferable college credit recommendations for a fraction of the cost of a traditional course. Define direct democracy.
a government in which people elect delegates tomake laws and conduct government. Characteristics of Communism. one class would evolve, property would all be held in common, and there would be no need for government.
Representative Democracy, citizens elect decision makers, Roman law. Who wroter the Spirit of law. Turnitin provides instructors with the tools to prevent plagiarism, engage students in the writing process, and provide personalized feedback.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of regardbouddhiste.com regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.