Tyranny vs. monarchy essays

Tyranny vs. monarchy essays One cannot accurately define monarchy versus tyranny. It is a matter of personal opinion. This opinion is based on fundamental ideals and values that an individual has formed throughout his life. monarchy becomes a tyranny when the monarchy has lost the sincere desire for the happiness for the population. Now, the road to achieving happiness is conceptually different in almost every culture. The concept of happiness in America is a big house, fast cars, seventy-two inch plasma flat-screen with the bling-bling. This is not the version of happiness prevalent in many collectivist societies. Radical Muslims loath America for being tyrannical capitalists. At which form of influence on Dahls scale does one label a persuasive action as tyrannical? At what point does imposing a majority view on a minority become tyrannical? These questions have to be gauged by societal and cultural standards. Nations have a penchant for being very narrow-minded when viewing other leaders. Societies tend to judge foreign societies actions based upon an ethnocentric view of the world by relating it to themselves and there own culture and then passing judgement accordingly. For example, many Americans value individualistic ideals and some will see a communist state as tyrannical. If one has formed a set of values that value private property highly, he may feel a socialist government is tyrannical. Many Americans view Islamic states to be tyrannical on the basis that women are subordinated in that society without respecting thousands of years of culture. Here is a brief theoretical case study. The dictator from politically unstable Poptrunkistan massacres a bunch of his own people protesting at a town square. People would be quick to label that leader as tyrannical. However, the dictator may justify his actions, and rightly so, by saying he was motivated by the possibility of saving thousands more from the civil war that may have bec ...