Nowherelandians can utilize the concepts proposed by Locke, Marx, and Plato to establish an ideal state that represents and serves the will of the people. Initially, the Nowherelandians should struggle to establish a democratic state that fosters Liberty, Equality, and Justice. Locke noted that the government represented the will of the citizens, which means that it is obliged to serve and focus on satisfying demands and desires of “the governed.” In this respect, the government should always seek the consent of the citizens before endorsing any governing policy. I advise the Nowherelandians to establish a state in which citizens assumes the central and final voice in guiding government’s procedures. Accordingly, the Nowherelandians should have the right and power of appointing and firing their leaders. Furthermore, the law making procedures should acknowledge and include the citizens to ensure that the Nowherelandians assume a pivotal role in instituting laws that govern them.
owever, the Nowherelandians should be warned of various aspects that have the potential of undermining the idea of good governance. These are comprehensively described by Plato in his examples of unsustainable governance. Initially, Plato criticizes a Plutocracy government which presents a state mainly controlled by a small population of ultra-rich individuals. He also is against the idea of Timarchy governance that regards to a state mainly ruled by the “honorable” who may include soldiers, campaigners and worriers among others. In the quest of establishing a democratic state, Plato warns against the effect of the “mob rule’ that may be visualized as the tyranny of the majority. The voice of the majority is often assumed to mean the voice of the governed; however, the Nowherelandians should ensure that the voice of the minority is also not ignored. The Nowherelandians should adopt an aristocracy kind of governance, which Plato identifies as the ideal state. This entails instituting a government that rules by the best. The best should not essentially include the richest or individuals who own the resources, but those skilled in the arts and sciences of governance.
Lastly, the Nowherelandians should be informed by the concepts proposed by Marx especially in managing their capital or resources. In line with the Marx’s view, the Nowherelandians’ government should resemble a tool that initiates and promotes the process of redistribution of resources through using its sovereign authority to ensure that the society is more equitable. The government should be informed and guided by principles such as nationalization of resources and creation of a social model of production.
Arendt presents a well-thought argument when she states that, “goodness as a consistent way of life, is not only impossible within the confines of the public realm, is even destructive of it.” Through this statement, Arendt challenges the society to think of the real implication of the idea of “goodness” particularly in relation to politics and governance. The statements highlights that Arendt was informed of the horrors of political evil. She is aware that leaders or influential individuals may take advantage of the idea of ‘goodness’ to shield themselves from suffering the consequences of their evil or unjust practices such as ones that may result to mass political violence. Arendt is convinced that the Christian postulate of “absolute goodness” is unpractical in the society ream and lethal to the politics. She feels that the idea of good initially suggested by philosophers such as Plato presents the basic concern with the contemplation of the beautiful being the central virtue. Plato identifies with the argument that Arendt tries to make in this statement.
For example, in relation to politics, Plato explains the idea of the goodness regarding it as a “good for’ to ensure that the concept is pertinent in the realm of human affairs and politics. In this context, the concept of ‘good for’ presented as a tool for evaluating all practices in this realm. However, Arendt making reference to Machiavelli, she is fully confident that the concept of goodness was extremely disastrous. Arendt argues that Machiavelli realized that the standard model proposed by Plato was a utilitarian policy that was hostile to action and politics. Machiavelli objected the idea of goodness and designed Plato’s diluted theory of the Good. This meant that an action needs to be valued for its role in the contemplative-moral life, but not for itself. Arendt’s argument is a well-thought and logical postulate. Incoherent with her argument, the goodness is naturally not suitable for the public, nor can it be a primary aspect of action in shared world. This is because an action mainly has consequences harmful to at least some people. In this context, it becomes apparent that no action can be ‘absolutely good’ at any situation. Furthermore, the desire to be good in public setup is harmful to both the public ream and the goodness itself.
Machiavelli and Arendt would have agreed with the presented statement since it clearly relates with their beliefs and arguments. It is apparent that men make their history, and they never do this in isolation. Arendt acknowledges that there can never be absolute good because man’s action has consequences. This means that an action that may appear good in one situation or to one person may fail to be good to another one. Evidently, Arendt argues that an action essentially must affect some people. This supports the part of the statement that states that men never make history under self-selected circumstances. It is indisputable that men make history under the already prevailing situation, the provided situation and the circumstances derived from the past. This implies that although some philosophers argue that the act of doing good is inborn within the human race, circumstances and events that took place in the past or the current situation may define one’s attitude toward doing good.
Machiavelli argues that goodness of any action should be examined in relation to its effect on the contemplative moral life. This means that past actions or undertakings cannot be ignored when thinking of the idea fostering the goodness in the society realm. Rousseau could also have supported the statement since he believed in the idea of the social contract. The idea of man creating his own history—a process that affect others in the society and the effect of the past and current events in influencing man’s activities can directly be linked with the concept of social contraction. According to the Rousseau, man is inherently good; however, evils of the society corrupt him. This supports the assertion made in the statement that the tradition of the dead generations presents like a nightmare on the brains of the living. The sentiments raised by these three philosophers affirm that they could have conquered with the presented statement.