The Python Programming Language Computer Science Essay

The Python Programming Language Computer Science Essay Wikipedia definition of Python programming language is as followed; Python is a general-purpose high level programming language. Its design philosophy emphasizes code readability. Python claims to combine remarkable power with very clear syntax, and its standard library is large and comprehensive. Its use of indentation for block delimiters is unusual among popular programming languages. Python supports multiple programming paradigms (primarily object oriented, imperative, and functional) and features a fully dynamic type system and automatic memory management. Python is often used as a scripting language.and Python is a programming language that lets you work quickly, it also integrate your systems more successfully. Python is a powerful programming language that is used in a wide variety of application domains. Python is often compared to Perl, Ruby or Java. Some of its key features are: Fans of Python use the phrase batteries included to describe the standard library, which covers everything from asynchronous processing to zip files. The language itself is a flexible powerhouse that can handle practically any problem domain. Build your own web server in three lines of code. Build flexible data-driven code using Pythons powerful and dynamic introspection capabilities and advanced language features such as meta-classes, duck typing and decorators. Python lets you write the code you need quickly. And, thanks to a highly optimized byte compiler and support libraries, Python code runs more than fast enough for most applications. Python also comes with complete documentation, both integrated into the language and as separated web pages. Online tutorials target both the seasoned programmer and the newcomer. All are designed to make you productive quickly. The availability of first-rate book completes the learning package.and[2]and The programme I have chosen to compare against Python is Cobra. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting between the two programming software. On comparison, I have found Cobra has a more compile-time in regards to the error checking time. I believe Cobra saves time when it comes to reporting more than one error at one time. Cobra allows simple local variable assignment, which is very similar to Python; however with Cobra they give you a warning if they are never used. In Cobra these errors are caught at a compile-time and hardly take place during execution, like Python. Cobra believes getting them out of the way early, which will increase productivity time. Contracts have numerous benefits: They become part of the document interface to a method, showing what is expected to invoke the method and what can be relied on when the methods returns. They are technically enforced because they are executable. They catch run-time errors early when errors are still easy to diagnose. They are inherited by subclass methods so they do not need to be re-implemented (less coding). They may encourage developers to do more upfront thinking about how their classes will be used.and[3]and The problem is that Python defaults to a binary floating point type even though most numbers that people input are base 10. To help address this Python offers an additional Decimal type that computes the correct numbers, but it must be used explicitly end, some would say, awkwardly: So Cobra does the inverse, defaulting to an accurate decimal type and offering the floating point type as an option. A simple f suffix on a number such as 0.1f gives the 64-bit point value. The types are built in with the names decimal, float, float64 and float32. The type float is an alias for float64. Note that in both languages, float math operations are faster than decimal. However, most applications should prefer accuracy over speed that may not be noticeable or needed. For the other applications that really require more speed or compatibility with floating point based libraries, Cobra offers a command line option number:float64 which changes the types of literals like 1.0 and 0.5 to float64. Furthermore, Cobra provides a built-in number type which defaults to decimal but changes to float64 with this option. You can also specify -number: decimal although the letter is redundant.and[4]and Cobra complies down to machine code right out of the box. And Cobra favours static types for local variables by inferring them from their assignment. This promotes more compile-time error checking, especially when invoking library methods. But it also promotes speed. Python has solutions for improving speed for its developers: you can write some of your Python modules in C and wrap them in SWIG. You can use Pyrex. Or you can stay in Python and bring in C or C++ via Inline or Weave. But with Cobra the speed is built in from the beginning. You do not get kicked out to another language or get forced to assimilate another tool. Cobras performance is close or equal to that of C# and Java, and is therefore significantly faster than Python. Iron Python claims to be around 1.8X faster than Python, but this is still far slower than Cobra. Also, some users have found Iron Python can significantly slower than CPython and Jython.and[5]and Some applications including financial analysis, simulation, search, neural networks, games, and more require numerous CPU cycles which can cause Step2 to become a bottleneck during development. Cobra enables a tighter development cycle by offering high level coding and fast execution simultaneously. Because Cobra has no Global Interpreter Lock (GIL), it can run threads in parallel up to the number of cores available. Combined with its inherent speed, you can pack a lot of computation in one process on one computer.and[6]and In regards to the syntactic improvements, Cobra shares much in common with Python: Indentation denotes code blocks List literals Dictionary literals Print statement Assert statement For foo in bar Slicing And more But Cobra does not strive to be backwards compatible with Python. This opens the door to some improvements. Cobra allows embedding expressions in string literals-often called interpolated strings in other languages. This turns every string literal into a mini-templating language.and[7]and The Cobra compiler is implemented in Cobra. This means that the entire time the implementers are maintaining Cobra, they are using Cobra. This really tightens up the feedback loop on usability and bugs. This is in contrast to most other languages that are typically implemented in some other language. That practice greatly reduces the time that the language maintainers spend using their own language.and[8]and These disadvantages to using Cobra are: Documentation needs expansion. Cobra classes are not malleable at runtime like Python classes are. Like all budding languages, some people will pass over Cobra because it is new and, therefore, not yet popular. Fortunately, many people do not balk at newness as evidenced by the fact that many new languages of the past have gained popularity after their introduction, including Python and C#. The same will happen for Cobra, in time. Cobra is not yet available for JVM.and[9]and My overall thoughts of both Python and Cobra programming language, after researching for hours, I came to the conclusion that although Cobra is the better programming language it is not as established as Python, as of yet. Cobra offers a lot more for the user compared to Python. However saying that, I have only used the Python programming language software, so I can not give an answer as a user. Although from all the research I had come across, I still believe that Cobra would be a better programming language to use.

Its Raining in Mango :: Free Essay Writer

It's Raining in Mango Thea Astley’s It’s Raining in Mango (1987) is a story of Australian history told through five generations of the Laffey family. Astley introduces several issues to the reader that were and still are part of Australian society. Through the use of narrative techniques including characterisation, narrative point of view and naming, Astley is able to position the reader to challenge such societal ideologies, and instead support the thoughts and ideas expressed by the strong and dominant characters in the text. Two issues developed in the text are race and gender. Throughout the text, the white colonists are very racist towards the Aboriginals. Even cattle, horses and white women are placed hierarchically higher in society than the black people. In response to this, Astley constructs all narrations to be written through the eyes of the Laffey family, who are respectful towards Aboriginals, hence not racist, and despise societal ideologies. By making the narration of the text show a biased point of view, readers are provoked to think and feel the same way, foregrounding racism shown in the ideologies of early Australian society, and showing that Aboriginals are real people and should receive the same treatment to that given to white people. â€Å"They looked human, they had all your features.† (pg 27) There was, however, one section in the text whose narrative point of view was not given by a character in the Laffey family. This instead was given by a voice of an Aboriginal woman, when the Aboriginal children were being taken away from t heir families. By giving voice to the Aboriginal society, the reader is able to get a glimpse of their point of view on the matter, which once again shows that society was racist, and Aboriginals were treated harshly. Another narrative technique used to bring forward the issue of race is naming. By using harsh names to describe racist white people, it made Aboriginals seem a far ‘softer’ race. An example of this is Block, the white concreter who began a brawl in a pub in Mango. By using a name such as this, Thea Astley positions the reader to see Block as a hard, cold, strong male, and is also seen as an object instead of a person. Also by showing that Block is a concreter, this reinforces the thought of him being a ‘bad’ person, as he is ‘cold and hard as concrete’.

On The Beach At Night Alone By Walt Whitman :: essays research papers

In â€Å"On the Beach at Night Alone,† Walt Whitman develops the idea that everyone has a connection with everything else, including nature. Whitman uses a variety of writing techniques to get his point across. First, the repetition and parallel structure that his poems contain reinforce the connection between everything in nature. The usage of â€Å"All† 11 times emphasizes the inclusion of everything in the universe. The sentence structure remains the same throughout the poem, without any drastic change; however, the length of the lines in the poem vary. In addition, Whitman’s’ extravagance with his words further illustrates his idea of the Over-Soul. For example, â€Å"A vast similitude interlocks all† (4) shows his verbose nature. Whitman does not do directly to the point, but gives every little detail. Most importantly, Whitman’s’ use of catalogues stands as the most recognizable Whitman characteristic that illustrates his beliefs . These long lists that he uses set the mood of the poem. â€Å"All spheres, grown, ungrown, small, large, suns, moons, planets,† (5) shows the idea that everything is connected in nature. Similarly, â€Å"All nations, colors, barbarisms, civilizations languages.† (10) furthermore emphasize Whitman’s belief in the Over-Soul. Although Whitman uses a great deal of structural ways to stress his ideas, he also uses many other ways of delivering his ideas. First of all, Whitman portrays himself as a public spokesman of the masses. The tone of the poem is a very loud, informative tone that grabs ones attention. The emphasis placed on the word â€Å"all† adds to the characterization of Whitman as a powerful speaker. Furthermore, Whitman takes part in his own poem. Participating in his own poem, Whitman moreover illustrates the connection between everything in life. Lastly, Whitman, most of all, celebrates universal brotherhood and democracy.

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s Excavation at Troy :: Anthropology

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s Excavation at Troy Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s ability to challenge academic establishment make him an appealing yet dubious character. The German’s late nineteenth century excavations of Truva are often considered to have shed new light on ancient history or ‘undoubtedly destroyed a great deal of archaeological data that will forever be lost[1]. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds the romantic stems of Schliemann’s work; his excavations have proved limited to the evolution of archaeology and ancient history. However some of Schliemann’s methodologies have often been considered significant in context to the evolution of both fields. His ‘great desire to affirm his hypotheses[2]’ has lead to important ancient historical data such as demonstrating Greek civilisation had commenced approximately one thousand years earlier then previous scholars estimated. Yet Schliemann’s excavations of Hissarlik are not completely revolutionary to the development of ancient history despite the modernisation of his primitive archaeological techniques and his ability to incorporate mythology in interpreting and formulating ancient history, while several contemporaries dismissed its credibility. Firstly Schliemann’s crude methodical techniques are not definitive in comparison to the works of other archaeologists such as, General Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemann’s discovery of an unknown civilization contributed to the broadening of ancient history. Moreover, Schliemann’s ability to see the great value of oral history and mythology has brought significant development to historical methodologies. Finally Schliemann’s flawed yet revealing archaeological techniques has allowed archaeology to improve, in learning from its mistakes. Firstly Schliemann’s contribution to the development of ancient history is limited in comparison to that of archaeological pioneers such as Pitt Rivers. Rivers, like Schliemann both avoided the stigma as ‘treasure hunters’ in their pursuit for knowledge of the antiquities. However Schliemann’s failure to seek perfection and accuracy questions his place in true archaeological circles. Historian Geoffrey Arnott comments, ‘the accuracy of his excavation reports can†¦be questioned, most seriously with regard to Troy.’ Schliemann’s primitive and simplistic techniques involving the destruction of various ruins do not deserve monumental credit. Historian Wellington King comments on the problematic nature of Schliemann’s excavations, Schliemann’s’ great desire to affirm his hypotheses to provide the evidence for the answers he created, is also his greatest weakness and shortcoming†¦he often conducted his archaeological work in a highly unethical manner, and a manner that could even compromise the archaeological integrity of his finds. In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparing organic evolution to cultural development and developing future archaeological generic fundamentals such as ‘typology.’ ‘His purpose, therefore, was not concentrated on collecting artefacts solely for display, but in order to create a complex scheme of evidence to outline history.’[3] By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be

Information System in Global Business Today Essay

1. What are the inputs, processing, and outputs of UPS’s package tracking system? Inputs: firstly, the scannable bar-coded should be pasted to the package, there are some information on the scannable bar-coded, like the sender, the destination, and the time of the package arrive. And then, customer could get own labels by UPS. For example, people could go to the UPS web site and use special software to download this information. The data off labels would be delivered to the UPS’s computer centre that nearest final destination, before the package pick up. Furthermore, workers should download these labels information by using UPS software and establish some special delivery route for every driver; people should consider some factors that affect package transmission, like traffic, weather conditions, and the location of every stop. Processing: there are some points that through from the sender and the receiver. Bar code equipment could scan labels to get some package information and send these data to the centre computer. By this way, customer also could check package information from web site, customer could check the data that extreme detailed, it contains delivery routes, calculates hipping route, determining time in transit, and so on. Outputs: first of all, the data that collected from web site are transported to the centre computer and back to the customers. Moreover, UPS also provides some tools that convenient customer to visit own web site, like Cisco system, it can be embed UPS function.

Existence of God Essay

Descartes applies the ‘Cogito ergo sum’ (‘I think therefore I am’) argument from the second meditation to prove another foundational truth, which is the existence of God. He uses his personal Christian belief and definition of God to build upon this proposition and tries to prove that something besides him exists by contemplating his idea of God. This essay will explain and assess Descartes’ aetiological and cause of existence arguments for the existence of God by identifying the meaning of existence in this context and the clear and distinct rule, as well as examining each premise and conclusion of the proofs. Finally, this essay shall attempt to evaluate Descartes’ arguments. The Third Meditation begins with Descartes’ affirmation of his own existence. He is a thinking thing which exists by clear and distinct perception, and it is therefore impossible to be doubtful of knowledge that he completely understands. Certainty and truth are equated. In order to establish the clear and distinct rule, Descartes must prove the existence of a perfect and undeceiving God: â€Å"Since I am a thinking thing, and have in me an idea of God, whatever finally the cause may be to which my nature is attributed, it must necessarily be admitted that the cause must equally be a thinking thing, and possess within it the idea of all the perfections that I attribute to the divine nature.† Descartes has an idea of God and perceives that God would not deceive him since deception would mean imperfection, and God is infinite and perfect. Descartes also presents the idea that with God’s perfection comes His existence. This can be summarised as: |(P1) |Descartes exists because he thinks. | |(P2) |He exists by clear and distinct perception of things. | |(C1) |Descartes exists as a thinking thing. | |(P3) |As a thinking thing, he has an idea of an infinite and perfect God (which is clear and distinct). | |(C2) |God is infinite and perfect in his idea. | |(P4) |Existence is perfection. | |(C3) |An infinite and perfect God exists in his idea. | This is an argument considering the idea of God alone and does not rely on experience to prove his point. This relies on the ‘Casual Adequacy Principle’[1]. Descartes argues: â€Å"There must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect.† He claims that his idea of a perfect God must itself be caused by something perfect. Descartes also defends this argument by insisting that: â€Å"†¦.certainly not nothing, and so it cannot come from nothing.† For example, the existence of a stone (which previously did not exist) must be produced by something which contains the components of a stone. The cause must have more reality than its effect. The flaw here is that there is no definite connection between the cause of an object (something perfect) and its effect (idea of a perfect God). If there were, then it would follow that perfection created God, and that perfection must have been caused and created by something else, and so o n and so forth, which would lead to an infinite regress. This idea therefore, does not have a straightforward cause and is false. Hume argues that we can conceive of something perfect without any bearing on its actual and immediate existence. It is logically possible that some ideas have no cause. If the idea of God has no cause, Descartes’ proposition is false and the argument fails. Another variation of this argument is that the idea that God cannot exist in Descartes’ mind unless God Himself put that idea there, and that God must have brought about Descartes’ existence; not himself, his parents or something else less than God, which does not have a power and perfection to cause this, neither could an infinite series of events, each causing the other but not able to cause the idea of God: â€Å"Altogether then, it must be concluded that the mere fact that I exist and I have within me the idea of the most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.† This can be summarised as: |(P5) |If the cause of Descartes’ idea of God must not come from himself, his parents, something else or infinite series of | | |events. | |(C4) |Then the cause of Descartes’ idea of God is God. | |(C3) |An infinite and perfect God exists in his idea. | |(P6) |Neither himself, his parents, something else, nor an infinite series of events causes Descartes’ existence. | |(C5) |Descartes’ existence is caused by God. | |(P7) |If God created Descartes. | |(C6) |Then God exists. | This argument depends more on assertion than logical progression, but Descartes goes on to try and prove through the ‘aetiological’ or ‘trademark argument’ that the presence of the idea of God in our mind means that God has stamped it there. It is innate and cannot be explained by experience. Descartes’ idea of God is clear and distinct, and by God he means infinity and perfection. This can be summarised as: |(P3) |Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. | |(P8) |Only something infinite and perfect can create something infinite and perfect. | |(P9) |The only infinite and perfect being is God. | |(C7) |The idea of God must be created by God (the same as C4 but reworded) | |(P3) |Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. | |(C8) |God exists clearly and distinctly in his idea (the same as C3 but reworded) | If both P3 and C8 are true, Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning (begging the question fallacy). This argument relies upon its conclusion. It also follows God exists only as an idea. However, Descartes claims that there are different kinds of clear and distinct perceptions; one that could be subjected to doubt, for instance: 1 + 1 = 2 is a judgement (which corresponds to things that exist independently of him) and can be doubted unless God confirms it, and, therefore, potentially doubtful. The other is that his clear and distinct perception that God exists is an idea with no judgement attached and somehow immune from doubt (he cannot be wrong about the contents of his own thoughts/ideas). This makes me think that Descartes awards himself the prerogative of distinguishing ideas that can be clearly and distinctly perceived from those which cannot. In this essay, and in Descartes’ meditation, the word ‘idea’ has come up numerous times. This leads me to conclude that the only proof that Descartes manages to establish is that God exists as an idea. He does not have to build the reality of God’s empirical existence into an idea that is already clear and distinct. However, it does not follow that anything represented by such an idea actually exists, except, of course, in the case of God (again, probably one of Descartes’ prerogatives). For example, within my reasoning, I possess the concept of God but do not have to believe that He exists; but as a believer, I may argue that God exists for reasons which our intellect cannot grasp. This requires a ‘leap of faith’ rather than hard evidence. Similarly, someone may argue that they can conceive of there being dragons. We all understand what dragons are, but do not necessarily believe they exist. It is probably therefore necessary to build empirical, actual existence into the argument to prove that anything exists in a concrete and meaningful way. Apart from the flaws identified in Descartes’ arguments, much of his reasoning seems sound and valid. He has established two fundamental truths: ‘I exist’ and ‘God exists’ to be logically necessary, clear and distinct ideas. So, as a matter of logic, it does not make sense to doubt the existence of the idea of God. However, Descartes’ argument does little to endorse my residual belief in God, which results from a convent education. The idea of God made in man’s image is comprehensible to most people. Indeed, â€Å"The idea of God is central to religion, and without it, religion would not exist.† (Mary Warnock). This is a perfectly valid argument but no proof of God’s existence outside the mind. Bibliography Burns, E. and Law, S. 2004. Philosophy for AS and A2. Oxon: Routledge Cottingham, C. 1996. Descartes Meditations of First Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Thornes, N. 2008. AQA Philosophy. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd Vardy, P. 1999. The Puzzle of God. London: HarperCollins Publisher Warnock, M. 2010. Dishonest to God. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Online Textbook Pecorino, A (MD). 2001. Philosophy of Religion. Queensborough Community College, CUNY Website http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-meditations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_adequacy_principle Word Count 1,346 ———————– [1] CAP is a philosophical claim made by Descartes that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, whether formally or eminently.

Hobbes vs. Thoreau

Thomas Hobbes’ book, Leviathan and Henry David Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government could not be more opposed when it comes to looking at the social contract from a political philosophy viewpoint. On the one hand, Hobbes maintains that humanity’s utmost obligation is to submit oneself to the authority of the sovereign state. Thoreau, on the other hand, argues that under specific circumstances, it is humanity’s duty is to resist the state. This paper will argue that Hobbes does not succeed in establishing our obligation to submit to the sovereign’s authority.Instead it is Thoreau whom is correct that in certain circumstances we are obliged to resist the State. The two main issues with Hobbes’ reasoning in Leviathan regarding the sovereign authority stem from his explanations of the Laws of Nature and the power of the government. In Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government, these two issues are more adequately addressed. Befor e establishing the reasons why Thoreau’s views on the obligations of the citizen to the state are more correct than Hobbes’, it should be noted that Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government was published 198 years after Leviathan.While Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the English Civil War, Thoreau wrote Resistance to Civil Government as an abolitionist during the time of the slavery crisis in New England and the Mexican-American war. Therefore the differences in social context of the two works are drastic. Not only was Leviathan regarded as one of the earliest works containing social contract theory, Hobbes himself is regarded as one of the key figures in the English Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Age of Reason.This context within which Hobbes thrived, and within which Leviathan was published is significant, because the philosophical method upon which Hobbes based Leviathan is modelled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and establ ished definitions. In this model, each argument makes conclusions based upon the previous argument. Hobbes wanted to produce irrefutable political philosophy in Leviathan by creating a model based on geometry because conclusions that are derived by geometry are supposed to be indisputable.However Hobbes’ book is far from indisputable, and much of its logic is not entirely sound. This is evident in a number of examples, but most prominent are the Laws of Nature and the power of the government. In order to better explain why Hobbes does not completely succeed in establishing the obligation people have to submit to the sovereign’s authority, a brief summary of Leviathan is necessary. In Leviathan, Hobbes sets out on an exploration of human nature, which eventually leads him to the conclusion that an absolutist state, where all power lies within the hands of the sovereign authority, is necessary.The reason that Hobbes feels absolutism is necessary is what he refers to as t he ‘state of nature’. The state of nature is used to explain the inherent qualities in man that makes him behave the way he does, outside of the boundaries and limits imposed by social law. For Hobbes, the state of nature consists of selfish men who will inevitably turn to violence in their quest to satisfy their own selfish needs. Therefore, because all people are inherently violent in the state of nature, all are also equal because no person is above or less capable of violence than anyone else.To the argument that some are physically stronger than others, Hobbes retorts that even those who are stronger are still vulnerable when sleeping. In this way, though all are equally violent, all are also equally vulnerable. However, man is also rational, and so in response to this vulnerability, man’s selfish desire to ensure his own life above all else, will lead them to put their faith into the social contract. The basis upon which the social contract is made necessar y, in other words, the state of nature, is what ultimately produces the Leviathan.Hobbes believes that in order to secure their own lives, people will automatically submit all of their freedom into the hands of the sovereign’s authority. One of the first aspects of Hobbes’ work that undermines his, mostly logically-sound Leviathan, concerns the Laws of Nature. Hobbes seems to take it for granted that all the people in a single state would agree with one another to submit all of their power to one authoritative entity, on the basis that they will realize it is in the best interest of their security.As professor Ian Johnston says, â€Å"If human beings are like sheep, I don't see why they need a ruler; if human beings are like wolves, I don't see how they will tolerate a ruler. † If, as Hobbes suggests, the state of nature is anarchy, then what aspect of nature drives all people to form a commonwealth? In this respect, it appears that Hobbes contradicts himself, f or he proclaims that man is brutish, violent, and only concerned with self-interest, however he is also reasonable enough to form a social ontract in which his own ease and commodious living is secured. In light of the latter characteristics of man that Hobbes describes, where man is rational enough to participate in such a social contract, the necessity of submitting oneself entirely to the sovereign authority is unfounded and too extreme. The second main issue with Leviathan concerns the power of the government. Hobbes fails to explain why people would trust an authority made up of other people, no different from themselves.If every person knows that their own inherent violence and selfishness is what necessitates total rule by an authoritative figure, would they not doubt the authority, assuming that the corruptness inside of them extends to said authority as well? Hobbes does not seem to consider this issue worth much in-depth consideration, for he does not believe that the sove reign authority would ever put the people in a situation where they need to defend themselves from the governing powers. According to Hobbes, the state will remain efficient because it recognizes its dependence upon the work of the citizens.In Hobbes’ words, â€Å"the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength and reputation of his subjects. For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a war against their enemies. †Ã‚  However, the consequences on a person’s ability to produce wealth for a country is not the only concern for a state in which all the power rests within the hands of a sovereign authority.Hobbes answer does not reach any further into the moral or human rights of the citizens, which are much more vulnerable to being infringed upon in an absolutist state. Hobbes neglects to address this because he believes that the state would not attack these rights based on the fact that it would potentially produce chaos, which is the exact opposite of what the sovereign authority is meant to do. It is clear that for Hobbes, the dangers of a tyrannical sovereign are more appealing than the absence of any sovereign, or in other words, a society left to the state of nature.While having some form of government, as opposed to rampant violence, is preferable, it is unnecessary for the citizens to relinquish all freedom to the authority of the sovereign, as Hobbes suggests. It would have been impossible for Hobbes to predict the political evolution of modern states. However his description of the benefits of the absolutist state hint at modern examples of states where all the power has been concentrated into a single, sovereign authority, leading to the extreme corruption that Hobbes believed it would eradicate.The 20th century is full of examples of this; how ever one that particularly exemplifies the dangers of total submission to the state is Fascist Italy, ruled absolutely by Benito Mussolini from the early 1920s to the mid 1940s. Instead of aiding the state and its people, Mussolini created an illusion of what the common good really was, in order to enforce his own, absolute power. This lead to a significant decrease in security and loss of many human lives, which seems to indicate that submitting all power to the state, can lead people back into Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’, instead of out of it.While Hobbes’ endorsement of absolutism may have noble aims for humanity, when looked at from its primal and organic intentions, often absolutism results in the violent enforcing of rules or ideologies upon people, which is in itself a loss of security, and form of inhumane chaos. In a reaction to the rampant slavery in America during the 19th century and the Mexican-American war, Thoreau wrote the essay Resistance to Civil Government, hoping to encourage people to trust their own consciences over the rule of the law enforced by the government.Thoreau believes that mans best service to one’s own country paradoxically takes the form of resistance against it, if one feels that the government is supporting unjust or immoral laws. Subverting to the government, no matter what, or out of the necessity of obligation is to the detriment of the state and society, according to Thoreau. Instead, it is better to work to build a better one in the long term, even if that means chaos or anarchy in the form of revolution n the short-term.Though Thoreau’s views seem much more modern than Hobbes, Thoreau does doubt the effectiveness of democracy, or rather the reform of a government from within the government. Believing that voting and petitioning for change to be inefficient, Thoreau feels that one cannot truly see the government for what it is when one is working with it, and therefore one also ca nnot effect change when working with the government. In sharp contrast to Hobbes’ views on the role of the government, Thoreau not only proclaims, â€Å"that government is best which governs least†, but even going so far as to say, â€Å"that government is best which governs not at all. This is an example of where finding the middle ground between Hobbes and Thoreau is useful. While Hobbes may be correct that some form of government is necessary to a level of order within the state, Thoreau’s reasoning for why the government can be interfering can be found in modern example of politics. According to Thoreau, the government is used by a certain group of people to impose on others for their own personal gains. In this way, the government aids the success of those who control the state while impeding the success of those who are imposed upon.This view on the government can find itself exemplified in specific aspects of the American government. Though the role of t he government is to secure the safety and rights of all its citizens equally, many had dubbed the 20th century as an era of ‘corporatism’ for America, securing only the interests of companies. Corporatism, in terms of politics, is when wealth is used as a tool by corporations to sway the government in the direction of their own private interests. The overwhelming dominance of corporations can spread beyond politics, into many aspects of society.There are a number of negative effects of corporatism for the ‘common man’, such as pervasiveness on works unions, the increase in taxes coming out of citizens pockets in order to provide direct outlays, the subsidizing of unsubsidized jobs, the erosion of virtue within commerce, etc. Thoreau would have agreed with this notion of ‘corporate America’ for he believed the government to be like a machine, in which injustice is an inevitable component. Thoreau did not intend to ‘demonize’ the Ame rican government, but rather to shed light on what he felt was a total lack of agency or usefulness.This example establishes a modern framework for Thoreau’s argument that the government is not infallible, and how the role of the government sometimes necessitates resistance. As Hobbes would state, it is a natural part of being human to look out for one’s best interest. However, like his views on the role of the government, Thoreau’s view on the nature of men appears to also be more correct, in light of current or historical politics. In other words, chaos is not always best dealt with by being replaced by subservience, but by resistance and a change in ideological structure.Another current example of the validity behind Thoreau’s argument can be found in the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring refers to the movement of uprisings that arose and spread across the Arab world in 2011. It led to many revolutionary outcomes, such as the first free Tunisian election in October; the Egyptian president Mubarak being displaced by a pro-democracy movement; the toppling of dictator Gadhafi, liberation of Libya, and the removal of the ban on Libyan political parties; and the authoritarian leader of Jordan being forced to replace his government.None of these movements would have been possible without people’s willingness to fight to bring some of the power away from the government, and into their own hands. As if often the case with political philosophy, both Hobbes’ and Thoreau’s views are best when aspects of both theorists are taken and combined. When the absolutist nature of the government Hobbes’ argues for is taken away, his belief that a governing entity is required for maintaining a certain, and desirable, level of order becomes more valid.However in order to ensure that the rights and of citizens are protected, Thoreau is correct in arguing that resistance to an unjust government is the only way to ensure a just gove rnment. However, between Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government, the latter is more successful in establishing a sound view on the social contract. Thoreau’s advocates the evolution, and not destruction of the government.Therefore his argument that the government should be one that is capable of improvement based on the needs of the people, and his argument that people should embrace chaos if it means a just and moral reform of the government succeeds more than the arguments of Hobbes. Bibliography Bird, Alexander. â€Å"Squaring the Circle: Hobbes on Philosophy and Geometry. † Journal of the History of Ideas. 10. 1 (1996): 217-231. Germino, Dante. â€Å"Italian Fascism in the History of Political Thought. † Midwest Journal of Political Science. 8. 2 (1964): 109-126. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penguin Books, 1968/1651. Johnston, Ian. â€Å"Four Problems in Theory. On Hobbes Leviathon. Created December 2002. Accesse d November 2012. Keller, Ever. â€Å"In the service of â€Å"truth† and victory†: Geometry and rhetoric in the political works of Thomas Hobbes. † Prose Studies: History, Theory Criticism. 15. 2 (2008): 129-152. May, Larry. Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy. New York: MacMillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Owen, Judd J. â€Å"The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism. † Polity. 37. 1 (2005): 130-148. Schmitter, Philippe C. â€Å"Still the Century of Corporatism? † The Review of Politics. 36. 1 (1974): 85-131.Thoreau, Henry David. â€Å"Resistance to Civil Government. † The Picket Line. Work written 1894. Accessed October 2012. Turner, Jack. â€Å"Performing Conscience: Thoreau, Political Action, and the Plea for John Brown. † Sage Publications, Inc. 33. 4 (2005): 448-471 Woods, Thomas E. â€Å"The Cultural Costs of Corporatism: How Government-Business Collusion Denigrates the Entrepreneur and Rewards the Sycophant. † First Principles: ISI Web Journal. Accessed November 2012.