Private Property and Civil Disobedience - Essay Example

Instruction: Task: History Assignment. Question Private property is property that belongs to a private party, and not any governmental organization. Private property ownership refers to the legal ownership of items such as land, buildings and any other tangible or intangible item such that the owners are the only ones who have the sole legal right to undertake any activity with the property. In most instances, the owners can either be individuals or firms, but the major characteristic for private property is the fact that the owners are the only ones with total legal right regarding any activity that involves the property in question. This legitimate designation of ownership of property to an individual or firm is essential in that it aids in clearly defining the way that the said property is to be utilized. As such, this makes it easier to utilize a property such that its maximum potential can be realized. Additionally, the convenience that is gained from this legitimate designation is that the possibility for wrangles and constant disagreements over the said property are reduced, and this eventually improves societal cohesion and better mutual existence. Historically, property was basically a term used to define land ownership. This is due to the fact that land was, and still is, one of the most important human resources. However, with the dynamism of the contemporary society, the definition for property has continually evolved. There are numerous changes that cannot be ignored, and this calls for the adoption of various ways to define property in line with the need to adapt to the changes that define the contemporary society. Consequently, this is the perspective from which private property comes in, as it tries to consider the issue of property ownership in light of the dynamics that define the current society. As such, there are various definitions and perspectives from which the issue of property ownership can be viewed, with each perspective offering a completely different insight in light of the numerous facets of the society. In most cases, private property is all about property that is owned by individuals specifically for their own personal use. Under this consideration, the assumption is that private property is distinguishable from public property in that public property is owned by governmental agencies, and used for the broad benefit of the general society. This means that while public property is specifically for public use as allocated by the governmental authority in charge, private property is specifically for private use, with the legal owner having the sole rights to decide on the best way to utilize the property within the legal rights set by the government. It is also worth noting that private property could be used for the general benefit of the public, but in this case it is viewed from the perspective that it is the legal owner who decides to offer the public services, and not any governmental institution. On the other hand, private property could also be viewed as personal property if the owner utilizes the property for their own personal use. Therefore, this highlights the fact that private property can be viewed from numerous angles depending on the use for which the legal owner decides to utilize it for. Question 2. Civil disobedience is the diplomatic form of political demonstration where individuals fail to comply with certain laws in a bid to force the administration to yield to their demands. In this light, both Martin Luther King junior and Henry David Thoreau exhibit their displeasure at the government by resisting certain legal requirements in a bid to pressure the government into changing certain elements of the administration (Spielvogel and Duiker 289). Through their actions, they try to push their proposition that civil disobedience is an integral part of a society, and that for certain rights to be realized, the public must protest by snubbing laws that they feel may be inhibiting the realization of the rights that they are fighting for. However, despite the similar cause that both Martin Luther King junior and Henry Thoreau David are both fighting for, their concepts on civil disobedience vary in certain elements. Consequently, there are features that define their radical differences despite both fighting for a common good in line with civil disobedience. It is worth noting that Thoreau and Martin Luther King were different in various aspects. While Thoreau was white, Martin Luther King was black. Additionally, their actions on civil disobedience took place almost 100 years apart, and this highlights the societal differences that could define the different directions that they took in line with supporting their theory on civil disobedience. Consequently, one major difference that can be drawn from both is that while Martin Luther King actively took part in demonstrations and peaceful protests while trying to achieve social justice, Henry Thoreau was on the periphery for the major part, and generally brought out his views on the matter through essays and publications. Therefore, as much as they both fought for social justice, Martin Luther was actually more aggressive and action oriented while Thoreau used a relatively subtle approach. Therefore, apart from actively writing about civil disobedience, Martin Luther King also actively took part in various instances of social defiance to a far more extent than did Henry David Thoreau. Additionally, their approach towards the issue of civil disobedience vary when viewed from the perspective of their religious affiliations. Generally, Martin Luther King was a deeply religious man, and his views on civil disobedience were based on certain elements of religion in that he viewed the lack of compliance to unjust rules as a way of defying sinful or immoral elements of the society. This made him value the nonviolent nature of civil disobedience even more, as his religious perspective provided a relaxed view for exercising the protests. On the other hand, David Thoreau’s approach was not necessarily biased towards religion to the extent that Martin Luther’s was, and this means that his approach lacked the religious bias that could be noted in Martin Luther’s. Subsequently, Martin Luther’s views were within the limits of civil rights as well as religious expectations, while David Thoreau’s were generally inhibited by the civil laws of the time. This, therefore, is the reason behind Martin Luther King’s statement that not adhering to laws that one feels are unjust is in essence respect for justice and law within the society. Question 3. Niccoló Machiavelli, an Italian historian and political enthusiast has various works from which most of his inferences on matters that he cared about can be deduced. In most of his works, he tries to give insights on how politicians behave and the overall character that they generally possess. Through this, his thoughts on the said politicians can be extracted, and an analysis of his favoritism for the used politicians can be drawn. As such, one of the politicians that Machiavelli is fond of in his works, especially The Prince, is King Ferdinand of Spain. From the way Machiavelli depicts the king in The Prince, it is easy to conclude that there is a fondness and kind of admiration that he has for him. From the start, Machiavelli alludes to the king in most of his comparisons and examples. This means that he deeply connects with the way that King Ferdinand organizes himself and the general governmental structure that he uses. King Ferdinand’s rule was quite a long one, and it is Machiavelli’s reference to it that immortalized this rule. The accomplishments that King Ferdinand made, and the various conquests that defined his rule are the basic elements that define The Prince, thereby highlighting the admiration that Machiavelli had for him. Machiavelli’s The Prince talks about the need to be a great ruler by undertaking conquests and still maintaining fame and popularity among the people. To achieve this, he draws references from the conquests of King Ferdinand a lot, depicting how the King was able to conquer while still maintaining his conservative nature and not being liberal (Spielvogel and Duiker 333). This position demonstrates the way that Machiavelli must have felt that King Ferdinand’s approach was the best, and was a true depiction of how a ruler should be. Therefore, this highlights the admiration that he had for him, in light of the governmental aspects of conquests and non-liberalist approach. Moreover, Machiavelli had certain ideals and concepts that he lived by, and this mainly focused on looking at the society from the perspective that it is in, and not that that which it needs to be. As such, he was of the view that certain corrupt or depraved things could happen in order that a greater good could be realized. With this type of approach to societal issues, Machiavelli felt deeply connected to the governmental ways that King Ferdinand used in his administration. He felt that the way King Ferdinand utilized his power callously in his numerous conquests was a true symbolization and representation of how a great ruler needs to be. Consequently, this describes his admiration for the King and the administrative ways that the king used in his governmental operations. King Ferdinand’s ability to exercise religious discrimination without being hated was also one of the features that drew Machiavelli to him, and his straight forward approach to such matters depicts the type of rule that Machiavelli felt was appropriate, consequently demonstrating the admiration that Machiavelli had for him, and the constant reference of the King in Machiavelli’s works. Question 4. Both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are great philosophers with theories and propositions that have had a great influence on the society from their times up until the present day world. As an English philosopher, John Locke had significant influence on the American Declaration of Independence and the subsequent constitution. His perspectives to life and the various theories that he advanced aided in the formulation of the American constitution, in addition to being a major factor that can be inferred from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is based on the need to gain identity, and have a sense of self-reliance (Spielvogel and Duiker 167). This is greatly reminiscent of the ideas that form the core of John Locke’s theory of the mind, since his major preposition is that an individual has the power to decide the direction that they need their government to take. As such, the idea that the people have the say in any government is the basis from which the Declaration of Independence got its vigor, thereby highlighting the influence that exists between John Locke’s views and the general inspiration for the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes’s major proposition was on the state of nature. This is a look at how life is likely to be without any form of governmental structure. This state of existence allows everyone the right to everything, meaning that there is possibly no regulation and order of any kind (Spielvogel and Duiker 412). This form of life is basically savage, and is reminiscent of a life in its very basic form. The sheer savagery of this type of life necessitates the establishment of a political structure that facilitates civilization. Consequently, this reasoning is also an inspiration towards the realization of the American Independence and the consequent constitution. The Declaration of Independence focused on the realization of a well-structured civil existence for the American people, and this exhibits Hobbes’s idealization of the need to establish such a structure to escape the savagery of state of nature. Therefore, the constitution is a form of regulation that aids in defining the way that individuals are to exist within a political system, thereby reinforcing the notion of civilization in a society as per Hobbes’s theory. From the above analysis, the way that John Locke and Thomas Hobbes theories are integral elements for both the Declaration of Independence and the American constitution is clearly evident, since both advanced ideas and theories that were essential in facilitating the formulation of the essentials that defined the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. While John Locke looked towards the need for each individual to have their own identity and a sense of control over their lives, Thomas Hobbes proposed the need to realize a civilized society lest humanity became savages through his theory on the state of nature. Therefore, both theories and idealizations greatly impacted on the Declaration of Independence and the American constitution, as they both focused on the need to have a civilized society where the rights of all are honored and the sovereignty of the civil society is maintained; the major essentials that defined the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Works Cited. Spielvogel, Jackson & Duiker, William. World History. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Read More