The Role Of Totalitarianism In Governments

Superior Essays
The source believes that totalitarianism should be used regularly in governments in order to achieve goals. They have seen from history that totalitarianism results in great changes to a country. The USSR, for example, became rapidly industrialized under communism. The author ignores the fact that with this great power came great destruction to the lives of the citizens. Totalitarianism is an ideology that believes that the government should have complete control over nearly every aspect of its citizens’ lives. The source would agree most with Hobbes idea of a strong central power or “leviathan”. They would disagree with Locke’s idea that people are rational, reasonable, and able to make decisions for themselves. When the source says objectives, …show more content…
Hobbes would agree with this idea. He believed that people should give up their rights to the central power in return for protection. Every day, in some form, people give up their individual rights and self-interest for the common good. This is why people wait in line for their turn at the coffee shop, understand when others with greater needs go before them in the emergency room even though they arrived first, and evacuate a building when there is an alarm. In these circumstances, people have their own interests and desires, but are willing to set them aside for the good of those around them. This logical can be applied to the government. When there is a crisis such as a war, natural disaster, or pandemic, people expect the government to step in to ensure that despite the circumstances, they will do their best to continue to provide protection without compromising its goals. In a democratic society, the goal is protection of the individual in accordance with the will of the …show more content…
The ideas presents are contrary to liberalism, but may be embraced under certain circumstances. The danger of totalitarianism is that it can be difficult to stop. If used with a specific purpose, the support of the people, and a set time frame it can quickly fix problems that previously seemed impossible to overcome with the traditional democratic process. Two major dictators Stalin and Hitler are known for their use of totalitarianism. Their use of it was also a misuse and abuse of it. The ideas they put forward as the dreams of their country were generally not the dreams of the citizens. Rather, they were the personal dreams of the dictators. They took liberalism and completely rejected it. When totalitarianism is embraced, the citizens forfeit their individual rights and freedoms. While a temporary situation of putting them aside to resolve a dangerous situation such as a natural disaster, health crisis, war, or mass casualty event is acceptable, an extended term without rights for citizens is a catalyst to a further rejection of liberalism. As soon as the government takes away something from its citizens, it can be difficult for them to give it back. It also opens the door to take away more and more rights. Totalitarianism is dangerous, but in some cases it is necessary to protect citizens and allow the government to pursue their goals as

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Disobedience In Society

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A counter to this argument would be to point out that when dealing with governments that are not reasonable, the individual may not be expected to place themselves in a situation with such possible harm. However; under such a regime, the citizens have a duty to control, revolt, and regain their sovereignty at whatever costs. Without contention, governments which do not involve citizens have made their citizens slaves to their incentives. Such a government is not worthy of citizens as it no longer protects property, but infringes upon it, failing…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    White House Reaction

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In the case of the Iraqi conflict, Rumsfeld and Cheney were working alone, shutting out other political figures, to further their own interest. In doing this, their policies were primarily egoistic and therefore ineffective in the long run. There are some who say the rational actor model is beneficial when dealing with these self-interest groups. But in my opinion, the rational actor model does not account for egocentric players. These people do not make decisions on cost/benefit for the group as a whole, but rather for themselves alone.…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Democracy Exuberance

    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This would have had to occur without a social consensus, not all social would have agreed with the shift. Often, the imposition of a democratic order is linked to radical redistributive programs. Effectively, this is the “linkage effect.” The result is the polarization between the pro-democratic and the anti-democratic oppositions through coalitions and movements. This further enhanced the development of democratic instability, escalates into collective violence, and creates constitutional deadlock. Eventually, Democracy would decline into either an authoritarianism of the left (communism) or right (fascism).…

    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    R2p State Sovereignty

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages

    With the creation of R2P state sovereignty begins to be considered in terms of responsibility for the populace rather than just territory. The conversation that R2P creates is one in which the original ideals of state sovereignty are being challenged and the emergence of a more conscious aim to protect humans and not those who abuse them comes to light. Since the principle advocates the responsibility that the state has in protecting its citizens from things such as crimes against humanity, the priority of a nation shifts to the safety of its people. Changing the focus of the sovereign makes for the population to be less likely to endure human right violations which is ultimately the most important thing. The integration of R2P also makes it so that states are held responsible when failing to protect its citizens.…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Some laws are just so unacceptable that is not only the people’s right, but duty to disobey them. Following the laws that govern us blindly is a dangerous way to live. It is acceptable to go against the government when the government threatens lives of innocents and restricts free will, when the government loses the best interest of those it governs, and when the government neglects to acknowledge the voices of the people. It can only be expected that people…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They legally could not fight back against policies that benefited the elite but hurt them, as their freedom of speech was unlawfully taken away. They feared that the government was becoming tyrannical and…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Their pragmatism has shielded the American people from many of the overreaches a government can impose on its citizenry, but at the price of turning our government into a kind of a labyrinth. This price, I believe is a steep one. When one cannot easily traverse through their governmental landscape, power gets consolidated into a few key figures and this is one of the fatal flaws of a convoluted system of governance. And though there are a few values to having…

    • 1331 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Social Contract In order to govern a society, the established government needs a certain amount of control and power over the citizens. Mitchell defines this social contract as, “social contract an agreement among citizens or between the ruler and the ruled that defines the rights and duties of each party.” Locke views humans as benign in nature, who would passively live out their lives without interfering with their neighbors. Hobbes believes that humans are innately aggressive and must be controlled and regulated by a powerful central entity to ensure everyone coexists and lives peacefully. They both agree that social contracts are necessary, but vary their reasoning’s on why. We agree to become party of a society, and contribute to ensure the success of that society.…

    • 923 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Rousseau wanted the people to be able to govern themselves because of the negative way he saw the King govern his citizens. The King made decisions without thinking about how they affected his people; he never took their opinions into consideration and Rousseau believes that people should be in control of how the government affects their lives. I understand what he is trying to do, but there needs to be a more controlled system in place. Another downfall about his vision of governance is: what is the group to do when a law does not apply to everyone? Should they enforce it anyways because it is for the good of the majority, or would that be breaking the general will?…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    After those laws have been established, the legislative power must ensure that the laws made are ultimately for the good of the people. Additionally, Locke held the belief that the legislative power should not raise taxes on property unless they are given consent by the people or the representatives of the people. Locke believed that in the same way the legislative power would remain loyal to the will of the people, and the people had to be loyal to their government and not serve another. Under the surface there is an underlying trust that the people will respect the laws and rulings of their government, and that the government will only work to protect and preserve. Finally, the legislative power cannot place their burden of power in anyone else’s hands so as not to shift power to…

    • 1480 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays