<span>On January 25, 1787, Daniel Shays and his insurrectionists confronted a Massachusetts state militia force outside the Springfield armory. Shays’ Rebellion had begun in the summer of 1786, when Shays, a former Continental Army captain, and other western Massachusetts veterans and farmers formed an insurrection against the government for failing to address their economic grievances. Upon the confrontation at the Springfield armory, the state militia forced Shays and his followers to retreat to Worcester County, where they would be dispersed on February 4, leading to the end of the rebellion.</span>
Some argue that this is a misguided question. They say that Locke’s political philosophy is not based on natural law at all, but instead on natural rights, like the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. This is probably the greatest controversy in Locke interpretation today. Natural law theories hold that human beings are subject to a moral law. Morality is fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law. Thomas Hobbes created a new approach when he based morality not on duty but on right, each individual’s right to preserve himself, to pursue his own good—essentially, to do as he wishes.
Is Locke a follower of Hobbes, basing his theory on right rather than natural law? What difference does it make? One characteristic of a rights theory is that it takes man to be by nature a solitary and independent creature, as in Hobbes’s “state of nature.” In Hobbes’s state of nature, men are free and independent, having a right to pursue their own self-interest, and no duties to one another. The moral logic is something like this: nature has made individuals independent; nature has left each individual to fend for himself; nature must therefore have granted each person a right to fend for himself. This right is the fundamental moral fact, rather than any duty individuals have to a law or to each other. The priority of individual right reflects our separateness, our lack of moral ties to one another. According to Hobbes, one consequence of this is that the state of nature is a “war of all against all”: human beings are naturally at war with one another. Individuals create societies and governments to escape this condition. Society is not natural to man, but is the product of a “social contract,” a contract to which each separate individual must consent. The sole purpose of the contract is to safeguard the rights of each citizen.
This is the basic recipe for the political philosophy of liberalism—Locke’s philosophy. Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. He champions the social contract and government by consent. He goes even farther than Hobbes in arguing that government must respect the rights of individuals. It was Locke’s formula for limited government, more than Hobbes’s, that inspired the American Founding Fathers. But what is the basis of Locke’s theory? Is it natural law or Hobbesian natural right? The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, speak of both natural rights and natural laws. Locke does likewise. Natural law and natural right may be combined, but if they are, one must take precedence over the other. Either the individual’s right, or his duty to moral law, must come first. hope that helps!
Fear, Lynching, and keeping African Americans out of local political offices
Answer:
<h3>The effects of the so-called New Imperialism by European powers on local peoples in Asia and Africa had far reaching effects.</h3>
Explanation:
European conquests of Asia and Africa began around 1750s and lasted till the early 20th century. Countless wars and military force were imposed in Asia and Africa in order for the European powers to gain control over these regions.
Different parts of Asia and Africa were dominated by different European powers while Africa was scrambled into different colonies of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
Incorporating different rules and customs by the colonial masters had an adverse effect to the locals in Asia and Africa. The European powers exploited the natives, forced them to labor and slavery, moved them to new places, tortured and killed anyone who opposed, and many other atrocities were committed against them.
The Europeans also tried to force Christian values and forbade the practice of native religion or belief while converting many locals into Christianity.
The Colonial Encounters in Asia and Africa provide the readers a picture of how Europeans on their conquests to New Imperialism and dominance has transgressed the values of the natives of Asia and Africa. It reminds us how the control and dominance of these regions by European powers has greatly affected Asia and Africa.