Did political philosopher John Locke believe in democracy or just constitutional monarchy?
374831
John Locke writings indicate clearly that he was for democratic rule where fraternity, liberty and equality abound for the individual, you can compare Locke work with Voltaire, Montesquieu, and other 18th century writers. Locke works mostly boarded on the formation of civil society where there should be law and other, a society where the individual powers and limits does not ends with where his abilities can take him or her, but where there is a state institution to protect the poor and the weak from the strong and the oppressors.
109704
To control the world thru "democracy"
261443
a constitutional monarchy is a knid of a normal monarchy. With a king or a queen, but they dont have all the free power. Whatever they do has to follow under the laws of the country they're in.
336311
Constitutionalism is the limitation of government by law. It usually involves a sort of checks and balances system.  Most western democracies fall into this category. \n\nAbsolutism by contrast would mean all political power would be placed in the hands of a single individual or "branch" (usually with one person or an executive council in ultimate control).  China could be put in this category (kinda), also many privately held companies if you wish to extend the meanings to the business world.\n\nAs far as significant differences, constitutional systems are more resistant to corruption and absolutist systems are more effective at taking decisive action. An example of this would be the rule of law constitutional systems have managed to maintain for years but at the expense of a system that sometimes allows for lame duck congresses that can’t agree on anything.\n\nThe terms autocratic and democratic are usually used in lieu of absolutist and constitutional respectively (despite the fact that they aren’t as precise as the terms you used).  I assume this is why some people were confused as to your meaning.\n\nHope that helps.\nRegards,\n\nArmus
841378
Hass J, You ask an important question, and you deserve a respectful answer.\n\nWinston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the rest."\n\nThe legendary journalist, H. L. Mencken once said, "Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it -- good and hard!"\n\nThe sentiments in your question are the core issues that have animated political philosophy since the days of Socrates. How best to govern. People like Socrates and Plato believed that the people couldn't be trusted because they were basically ignorant; and therefore Democracy leads to mob rule. They argued for the rule of the "rational elite."\n\nLater, men like John Locke argued that since the people have to live with the policies of government; and since all sovereignty flows from the the people anyway, the people have the absolute rights.\n\nThe problem is, both groups are correct. The people are the ones who have to pay, and therefore they should have a right in determining the people who make them do the paying. And yet, most people don't pay close attention to politics, and therefore are subject to stupid rhetoric that has no basis in fact. And this leads to fools being elected to powerful offices.\n\nActually I think Clint E is being conservative in his estimates. I think the figure is actually closer to 50%. In most presidential election years, you're lucky if you get half of the electorate to show up. And when they do, there's no guarantee that the decisions they make weren't based on hearing some stupid 30 second sound-bite on TV. \n\nThe answer is education. People have to made aware of the consequences of being uninformed. It's not that people are retarded -- it's that they ACT like they're retarded. That's why some of us come on forums like this. We're trying to raise levels of awareness.\n\nSuperior Question. Hope this answer helps. \n\nCheers, mate
53740
I'm impressed by these answers... usually people say "Democracy."  I don't know if the term "Democracy" was even used before Woodrow Wilson coined the phrase "We must make the world safe for Democracy."\n\nWell, perhaps it was, but I think that Wilson meant it as a more generic term for free societies, and somehow it mutated into a catch-all description of our form of government, which, even after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, is still, in my estimation, a Republic.
548030
Magna Carta was by no means a democratic constitution proclaiming fundamental rights and liberties that were the common possession of all English subjects, rights and liberties that were to be guaranteed and equally applied to every subject. The document was crafted by a feudal nobility for a medieval society in which its members were legally and politically unequal, most members of the society were serfs without legally guaranteed and protected rights respecting their relations with government or with their respective feudal lords, and this general condition of legal and political inequality was accepted by virtually everyone as not only natural and normal but also right and just. Magna Carta, at the time of its adoption, was a feudal document designed to protect and promote the particular interests of the most powerful segment of the English population, namely, the barons and their vassals. While protection of the interests of free commoners (small landholders and burgesses) was included in the document, Magna Carta did not benefit the masses, since the vast majority of Englishmen in the thirteenth century were villeins -- i.e., serfs, or peasants, who were freemen in their legal relations with all persons except their feudal lord, to whom they were totally subject as slaves. Rather than being a democratic constitution specifying and guaranteeing to all citizens equal protection of the laws and the right to vote in elections for legislators and/or other government officers and to otherwise participate in the political process, Magna Carta was a feudal document intended to protect the specialized rights and privileges of particular social classes, to curb the trend toward royal absolutism, and to restore government according to established feudal customs and traditions. \nAlthough Magna Carta was almost forgotten during the century of absolutism or near-absolutism after 1485, the document was rediscovered and given new luster in the seventeenth century, during the "Era of the English Revolution" -- the period of constitutional crisis, rebellion, and civil war from 1603 to 1689. In opposition to the claims of the first two Stuart monarchs -- James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (l625-1649) -- to the right to govern as absolute monarchs, the defenders of the authority of Parliament brought out Magna Carta and gave it an interpretation that was much broader than what the document was intended to mean when, in 1215, it was drawn up and adopted. In interpreting the document as the palladium and principal bulwark of English liberties, Sir Edward Coke and other leading supporters of Parliament in the power struggle with the Stuart monarchs modernized Magna Carta, transforming it into a constitutional document that worked for the seventeenth-century "Parliamentarians," or "Whigs" -- the men who overthrew and executed one king (Charles I, in 1649) and deposed another (James II, in 1688), driving him out of the country, replacing him with a monarch of their own choice, and forcing the new monarch (William III, in 1689) to accept the Bill of Rights. Today, Magna Carta, like the Bill of Rights of 1689, is regarded as a major milestone in English constitutional history and development.
965201
The first European country with democratic idea(l)s was France. During the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799 the values "liberte" ((personal) freedom), "egalite" (equality) and "fraternite" (brotherhood) were the leading ideals in French society. Back then monarchy was brought to its fall and a new, democratic government was built. Unfortunately, one of the revolutions leaders, Robespierre, saw the only solution to bring the revolution to success in executing any possible "enemy" of it during his Reign of Terror. In the end, he was executed himself, the revolution failed, France ended up in monarchy again. The main problem was the extreme poverty among the people, the poor hoped through the revolution there would be less hunger and poverty, because the noblemen were killed and their properties taken, but with time passing they had to face the fact that they cannot make bread out of blood (I hope you know what I mean?)\nThe U.S.A. was the first country to successfully adopt the democratic ideals of the French Revolution and that, by the way, is the reason why France gave the Statue of Liberty with the torch of enlightenment to the U.S., the same torch is located in Paris as wyell. I hope I could help you a little... sorry for my English, I hope I used the right historical terms (I translated them literally from the German terms I know)
760022
Constitutional Monarchy that is also a Parliamentary Democracy and a Federation.\nFrom the CIA World Factbook\nhttps://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html
508825
Government is enabled by means of the percieved social contract.\n\nThe people of a country have an expectation on how their government will behave based around their belief in what that social contract contains.\n\nThe fun bit is that the social contract is never written down. \n\nThe social contract is ever evolving and changing, but can be traced back to the fundemental philosphical question - "Is man a social animal?"\n\nSocial contract theorists (Yes, all this is just theory), like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke developed rival social contract theories at around the time of the English Civil War.\n\nBoth formed a their philosophies with opposite answers on the question of man being a social animal.\n\nThe really great thing is that neither can be proved wrong or right. \n\nSo, if you believe that Locke is right, then you should be governed by a liberal democracy. If you believe Hobbes, then the best you can hope for is a benign dictatorship or competing, non-violent institutions.
1120472
I'm not sure, but I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is the right to bear arms." Meaning that if the population is not armed at all whose to stand up to an oppressive government. The government could become very oppressive if they knew they would have almost no resistance.
801772
Democracy and philosophy, arts
1004773
Back in 1776, monarchists argued against democracy as a form of government. They said it was absurd to believe that "All men are created equal" because anyone could see men came in different heights, weights and colors. Women did too, they said. Case closed.\n\nMy point is not about democracy. It is about debate. Before you argue about something, you should understand it. If you don't understand it, you'll look foolish. Gilda Radner, on the original "Saturday Night Live" TV Show, used to do a sketch every couple of weeks in which she made completely ridiculous arguments. One night she argued vehemently against the "Deaf Penalty", instead of the "Death Penalty". She looked absurd, which was the point, and we all laughed until the beer came out our noses, which was what she wanted. You don't want people to laugh at you.\n\nIn a serious debate, you should understand the other side. Note that I didn't say "Believe". Understanding is not the same as believing. If you were to study 20th century European Political history, you would have to understand several forms of government: communism (the UUSR), fascism (Germany, Italy), socialism (Lots of countries), socialist democracy, capitalistic democracy and constitutional monarchy. You would not believe in all of them; you could not believe in all of them at once. If you tried, your head would explode. You would, however, have to understand their basic concepts. \n\nIf you were to study comparative religion, you would have to understand what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists and Confucians believe. You would not have to convert to a new religion every week, but you would have to understand the other ones. You would not get very far in your studies if you dismissed all the other ones as "wrong". They believe their path is the right one just as strongly as you believe your path is the right one.\n\n99% of the biologists alive today believe that species evolve, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life.  Christian biologists, Jewish biologists, Muslim biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists; Australian, Bolivian and Chinese biologists; 99% of them believe it is the best explanation. Yes, it is only a theory. Planetary motion - the theory that the earth went around the sun, not vice versa - was only a theory for a long time. Some people still don't believe it. Their eyes tell them differently.\n\nSpecies don't evolve at the same rate and they don't all have to evolve. Alligators, to take one example, haven't changed much for 40 million years. The ones that were 50 feet long have become extinct, but the normal 14-footers are still there in the swamps, hoping men don't shoot them to use their hides for shoes. They didn't have to worry about that 3 million years ago. We humans are at the top of the heap today, either because we evolved or God liked us better than He did the alligators. Either way, we can make tools better than any other species.\n\nYour question has been answered, hundreds of times, by people more versed in biology than I. It gets answered ever week here at YA.\n\nIf you are truly curious, ask your minister to give you a short, reasoned explanation of evolution. If he says he can't because it is wrong, he is as ignorant as those monarchists I mentioned in my opening paragraph.
101012
Jefferson was the author of the Declaration (1776), Governor of Virginia (1779-81), US Secretary of State (1789-1795), Vice President (1797-1801) and President (1801-1809).\nHe was a strong beleiver in individualism and individual autonomy, free markets, and limited government.   \n\nJohn Locke is consider the origin of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental ("unalienable") right of humanity.  Locke wrote of the rights ot "life, liberty and estate (or property)."  Jefferson thought the right to "estate" was too closely tied to the concept of "feudalism."  The idea of phrasing it "life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth" was considered, but eventually the current phraseology won out.  In any event, the idea that life and liberty were fundamental rights had previously been expressed by Locke and others.\n\nYour question is really too broad to be covered in a brief answer here.  I suggest looking up James Madison, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia or some other encyclopedic site.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/
960278
Welll, I'll give it a go.  I think early America -- meaning pre-1776 (before the Declaration of Independence and the advent of the Constitution) -- was a "working democracy".  Technically, during this time, most of the country was under the monarchy of the English king.  And, the British Parliament increasingly enacted most of the laws that governed the area.  So, I would say it was not a democracy; it was, in fact, a monarchy under a king.\n\nHowever, the reason I believe it was a "working democracy" is because the colonists, being far from their homelands, had to rely on each other and, in effect, form a working democracy to communally enact laws and rules of living in order to survive the harshness of their circumstances.  In doing so, they became fiercely loyal to each other, rather than to the King.  They also loved the freedom they were experiencing, despite the hardships.\n\nAs time went on and the colonies grew, the British Parliament became ever more intrusive into their lives.  They began to resent the ever-increasing restrictions, rules, and especially taxations burdened on them by the British Parliament.  And so, they joined together to rid themselves of the British monarchy forever and to form a new nation.  They formed the "United Colonies" and then the "United States.  \n\nI'd say they were a working democracy (meaning that the people, i.e., the colonists, from the very first settlement in the New World formed their own  government of the people and by majority rule, based primarily on the need for the majority to survive) that then became a formalized democracy through the Declaration of Independence and the enactment of the Constitution.
453891
Its the reading of world history, abuse of power & molestation of peoples' & even the human rights were the ordrer of Autocracy & Monarchism. Many examples of the recent past stand there in support of the records in history.  \nSo, democratic system is the better choice that can stop the emergence of Autocratic regime & Monarchism which has alway been seen as curse to the people. \nYes, God is always there for any system we follow or we don't.
264665
Here's some interesting reading that I've found while looking for an answer to your question. I hope this helps. I'm not a philosophy major, but I do find it very interesting.\n\n"Interpreting Hobbes as the father of classical liberalism, Manent identifies Thomas Hobbes as the champion of absolute political authority-as the founding and paradigmatic liberal."\nhttp://www.dailyrepublican.com/liberalhistory.html\n\n"Why is a modern state disposed to destroy the corporate liberty of independent social authorities and concentrate power to the centre? And why is this destruction perceived as morally legitimate? The answer was given in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, which frames the first and most profound theory of the modern state. Hobbes pictures mankind as an aggregate of egoists in a state of nature without government, each pursuing his own power and glory without restraint. Since this is a self-defeating condition of constant conflict, rational egoists compact with one another to form a government for the sake of peace and stability. The sole end of the Hobbesian state is to maximize the individual's autonomy."\nhttp://www.southernevents.org/tyranny_of_liberalism_and_its_ev.htm\n\n"Among the constitutional provisions of the new United States of America one of the most important in limiting the power of government was held to be the device of the separation of powers. This represented a challenge not only to absolutism, but also to the theory of sovereignty, which had been used to give intellectual support to absolutism and to the more general principle of the supremacy of the state. Hobbes had argued that the only adequate bulwark against division, civil conflict and chaos within a society was the establishment of a single and indivisible ultimate authority—a sovereign."\nhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/arblaster.htm\n\nhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm