Thomas Hobbes's and Machiavelli's political theories Essay

Thomas Hobbes's and Machiavelli's political theories - Essay Example This is contrary to the teaching of Machiavellian that denounced ruthlessness and manipulation as a way of gaining power to control the masses. Machiavelli insisted that one should earn power and not to inherit. However, in most parts of the world power has been inherited and revolved within a lineage. In his book the prince, Machiavelli unequivocally states how political power should be used for the benefit of the people and how that power can be maintained. He cites the examples from his personal experiences and those from the ancient texts. Whereas he did not talk about what qualities a leader should posses, Machiavelli was keen to indicate that any method engaged by the ruler should factor in the fact that the state of the mind is not altered. In this regard, he did set the limits within which he believed gaining controlled should be checked. It will thus be construed that the cliche-the end justifies the means has been used in the most simplified manner considering the context o f his philosophical statement. Pragmatism and realism were the pillars of his philosophy, he also understood that ideals were impossible partake on as ruler. The philosophical work of Machiavelli has immensely contributed and accounted for the political manipulation seen. ... The head of the body in this case being the government that is charged with the responsibility to govern the people. In this case, the head and the body are expected to have coordination in which whatever the head does, the body must be aware of it through the transmitted effect or what may be referred to the trickledown effect. The head and the body are expected to have communication and when the head is ailing, the body too has to ail. This analogy was taken to the political scenario in which, what the government is doing has direct consequences to the people whom it is charged with the responsibility of governing. The implication the term body politics is to express the opinion that the people the government and the people are considered as one just like the body and the head do forms one thing. In some cases, sections of people have tried to redefine the term by saying that the term means exclusively the government alone. The intention of the statement is that a healthy governmen t should have the capacity to make conscious focus just like a healthy body (Hobbes, and Martinich 108). The people are regarded as a stake in the context of the head and the body as proposed by Hobbes to the extent that they are construed to constitute what is critical in the society. Though this may not be seen as a naive way of looking at the matter, it should also be considered that at times the government do exist and operate whimsically on the wishes of the people. It is thus important to note that the people’s opinion about the government may have significant impact and that in the event that the peoples turn violent, the government will have to be disrupted in its daily operation. The cordial

John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner, V. Abdullah Al-Kidd Case Study

John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner, V. Abdullah Al-Kidd - Case Study Example Al-Kidd further alleges that during the trial of Al-Hussayen, he has never been called as a witness and also that the authorities have â€Å"never meant to do so† (p.1). Therefore, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Attorney General’s â€Å"alleged policy† in authorizing his detention on the pretext that he is a material witness in the trial against Sami Omar (p.1). Initially, the case has been heard by the Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the action of the Attorney General has violated the individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment which disallows â€Å"pretextual arrests† in the absence of a possible cause of a criminal activity (p.1). John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, challenging the decision of Ninth Circuit Court, has filed the suit to Supreme Court appealing for a review. On a petition by Al-Kidd, the Ninth Circuit Court has heard the case and ordered that the Attorney General’s action of securing a warrant under the pretext that the petitioner is a material witness in another case and hence he cannot leave the country, and his detention for this reason, is a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the court has denied Ashcroft’s motion to dismiss the petition on â€Å"qualified immunity grounds† (p.1). The main issue present in the case is the question of the validity of the detention of Al-Kidd from a legal perspective, under the prevailing threat to national security of the US. The Attorney General has allegedly secured a warrant under the federal statutes relating to â€Å"material witness† for the detention of the former (Abrams, 2011, p.1). It becomes relevant here that the action of the Attorney General in securing the warrant for the detention of the petitioner is well within the relevant laws and thus it is purely legal. Under the prevailing circumstances in the country, when terrorist activities have been rampant in the nation, the petitioner has been detained because of his relevance