How have the natural rights philosophy and classical republicanism influenced American beliefs about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?

Answer 1

The major differences between classical republicanism and John Locke's natural rights are philosophy are that classical republicanism stresses the "common" good or community over the natural rights stress of the individual. You look at the natural rights philosophy from what Locke would describe as a "state of nature," that is, an imaginary situation where there is no government. Lock believed that there was a law of nture to govern a state of nature; he stated, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone...No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." The main idealogies of the natural rights philosophy are found in the Declaration of Independence with such ideals as consent of the governed, right of revolution, unalienable rights (or rights that cannot be taken away or given up, such as life liberty and property), and overall establishes a social contract. Classical republicanism is modeled after the Roman Republic, where te government provides its citizens with liberty under government and stressed the common good, or what was best for the society as a whole. Citizens within a republic must share the same characteristics: civic virtue, moral education, and live in small, uniform communities. Civic virtue is demonstrated when a person sets aside their own personal interests to promote the common good, and thus classical republics often drastically limited individual rights. Moral education is the idea that citizens must be taught to be virtuous based on civic religion; these virtues included generosity, courage, self-control, and fairness. Small, uniform communities were necessary to prevent factions (self-interested groups of individuals), and to prevent this, limited the degree of diversity within these communities. People residing within these communities often had similar wealth, religious or moral beliefs, and ways of life. To further prevent diversity, each community has an established religion (which is prohibited in our Constitution per Amendement 1).

Answer 2

Do you have Mr. Bosha?

Who is that?

ANSWER: The philosophy of natural rights and classical republicanism are essential influences in the creation of the Constitution of the United States. The influence of both on the beliefs of people today suggest there is little impact at all. People today regularly talk about a constitution that grants rights, rather than acknowledge and enumerate certain rights. We cordially and willingly go along with administrative agencies that presume jurisdiction simply because we smiled at them. We stand in line at the DMV for hours waiting to give this bureaucracy the jurisdiction it needs to take ownership of our vehicles, grant us permission to drive, regulate that driving and when they feel it's necessary confiscate their vehicle that they let you drive. We file income tax returns admitting to being made liable for the tax and sign it as true and correct under penalty of perjury, even though the vast majority of us haven't even read the law or statute or code that made us liable for the tax to begin with. We live in fear of common enemies such as terrorists and we admit that we would be willing to forgo certain rights if that means a more secure nation. We whine, beg, scream, wail and demand all sorts of privileges at the expense of individual rights. We pine for the Monarchy we so violently broke away from. We are birds in search of a cage. Pine for the Monarchy? Hogwash you say? Have you forgotten the bright and shining moment of JFK and his Camelot? John John referred to as America's prince? We demand our President ignore the Constitutional constraints placed upon him and take responsibility for our desires. We ask him to be Santa Clause and create a "universal health care" system, ignoring that even if this were wise it would be Congress who would have to legislate this system, not the President. Increasingly we turn to our court system and vote for Presidents based on their likelihood of choosing Supreme Court nominees that will serve as "activist judges" who make the laws Congress can't or won't. We self righteously claim that social welfare is a necessary component of helping those and need and we plunder the people to pay for this charity. Every year more and more "laws" find their way into the public record and more and more of these laws are encroachments on the natural rights of people and all the while we shrug our shoulders acknowledge an archaic text we call the Constitution and say; "Well yeah, we're supposed to be free theoretically, but this is the real world." Those people who stand firm and assert their natural rights are treated as dissidents by the government, viewed as radical anarchist by the public and generally disregarded. This is the real world where there are no absolutes! This is the real world where laws are made and not discovered, where the simple stroke of a pen can change Pi to a simple 3.0 to make it easier to teach. Where gravity itself can be repealed by the monstrosity of a government we've created. Natural rights have taken a back seat to direct democracy, and majority rules. This is the real world where people, when asked what makes this a free country answer it is the ability to have free elections, the one man one vote principle and don't even mention natural rights. We live in the real world where whatever it is you want to do to live and pursue happiness you had better check with the government to find out if it is legal. Yes, that's right, I would like to live in liberty to pursue happiness. Is that legal?