{"id":6418,"date":"2016-02-21T20:41:28","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T01:41:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/?p=6418"},"modified":"2016-06-28T13:41:42","modified_gmt":"2016-06-28T17:41:42","slug":"standards-too-static-two-perspectives-on-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/2016\/02\/21\/standards-too-static-two-perspectives-on-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Standards too Static? Two Perspectives on Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ThePhoto Credit:<\/a><\/p>\n

John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” touched on\u00a0salient points of contention following the Enlightenment Period, specifically\u00a0on “the nature and limit of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society” ((On Liberty, 1859)).\u00a0 One can interpret this as how much restriction\u00a0these leaders should rule with, and with how these rulers should go about administering these restrictions.<\/p>\n

Mill also references the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ as the source of these problems as well.\u00a0 On top of that, Mill also mentions that these rulers won’t just act through political authority, which “leaves fewer means for escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” ((On Liberty, 1859)).\u00a0 Mill means to explicate the notion that this political rule does not stop at general regulation such as taxes, but has a psychological effect on the masses as well.\u00a0 To clarify, rulers had rather poor relationships with the public in mid-1850s Europe. \u00a0Mill compared rulers to vultures when he said that those under rule had a “perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws” ((On Liberty, 1859)), and the oppressed masses their\u00a0prey.\u00a0 Mill is trying to give us the perspective that these commoners\u00a0had\u00a0little to no communication with their ruler, which not only portrays a bad image of the ruler, but also puts the public at a disadvantage in expressing their needs and interests to those who can influence leaders and rulers.\u00a0 Mill then poses the question of where the limits of power should be placed in regards to rulers and control over their people.\u00a0 Mill’s suggestions allude to the idea that these should be concrete and unmoving standards.<\/p>\n

Having previously read pieces of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” ((The Prince, 1532)) \u00a0and agreeing with many of his concepts,\u00a0I disagree with Mill’s finite standards.\u00a0 Obviously Machiavelli suggests a much more dynamic system, where regulations and liberties are dependent on present circumstances.\u00a0 Machiavelli also prescribes a bit of a more lax-but-distanced relationship between ruler and subject, which I find paramount in a monarchy.\u00a0 You don’t want the people you rule to revolt against you, so you at least have to be somewhat receptive of their plights and opinions.\u00a0 We see this fluctuation of activity in the European Union, where member states submit a monetary allotment for approval.<\/p>\n

I believe liberties and regulations should be ever-changing; with fluctuation it is difficult to get\u00a0stuck\u00a0with limits that may not fit the needs of your state or your subjects should a sudden crisis occur.\u00a0 More importantly this will not set any unrealistic standards for the future of your state, thus allowing you to eliminate any expectations or speculation the public may have of the future governance of their state (another important facet of “The Prince”).\u00a0 I do not believe that expectations are a truly horrible thing, but in society in regards to government large expectations can sometimes lead to unrest and\/or revolt if too many things are kept static.<\/p>\n

How would you rule?\u00a0 Do you think static limits and liberties are more advantageous than dynamic regulations?\u00a0 Why?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Photo Credit: John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” touched on\u00a0salient points of contention following the Enlightenment Period, specifically\u00a0on “the nature and limit of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society” ((On Liberty, 1859)).\u00a0 One can interpret this as how … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1454,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[110560],"tags":[94174,1621,125647,125649,125646,125648],"class_list":["post-6418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hist107-archive","tag-john-stuart-mill","tag-leadership","tag-machiavelli","tag-monarchical-rule","tag-on-liberty","tag-the-prince"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6418","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1454"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}