overnment works best and society improves itself. He feels this way because, each sees and feels that it can best promote its own prosperity by conciliating the good will and promoting the prosperity of the others (280).Calhoun also notes some objections to the concurrent majority. He points at two main thoughts. one is that it is difficult of construction, which has already been sufficiently noticed; and the other that it would be impracticable to obtain the concurrence of conflicting interests where they were numerous and diversified, or, if not, that the process for this purpose would be too tardy to meet with sufficient promptness the many and dangerous emergencies to which all communities are exposed (283). Calhoun responds that while it is often difficult to bring those who differ together when there is no urgent necessity, When something must be done -- and when it can be done only by the united consent of all -- the necessity of the case will force a compromise. . . Furthermore, the need to conciliate would promote the common interests of the whole, and it is thus that concession would cease to be considered a sacrifice (284). The final part of Calhouns argument is based on liberty and freedom versus the security of a society. Calhoun notes, to perfect society, it is necessary to develop the faculties, intellectual and moral, with which man is endowed. . . . For this purpose liberty and security are indispensable. Basically, Calhoun is saying with freedom comes rules and restraint. Utter freedom would ultimately destroy a society, because rules are in society to maintain order. Much like other thinkers like Aristotle and John Locke believe, without order anarchy will happen. Calhoun then defines liberty as the individual free to pursue the course he deems best as far as it may be compatible with the primary end for which government is ordained (280). Again, freedom gives people the ability to contribute to society, but peop...
