Jefferson's key arguments for independence consisted primarily of the Crown's imposition of taxes and trade restrictions on the colonies, but he was quite clear that the issue was not the independence gravity of the offence, but more importantly why the Crown had overstepped the bounds of mutual respect and consent, i.e. “No taxation without representation”. The colonists, in the end, mainly objected to the king's open disrespect towards them, forcing all trade to pass through Britain and forcing them to provide accommodation for soldiers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Declaration of Independence should not be considered an actual declaration of war, although it comes very close. This is mainly a semantic position: I believe that a declaration of war must be explicit, or at least threaten violence, which the Declaration does not do. For example, India, Costa Rica, and probably South Africa all made declarations of independence in some form and never fought a war or even experienced widespread violence during the time they gained independence. Therefore, we must conclude that a declaration of independence and a declaration of war are necessarily distinct and neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Jefferson defines the role of government as very limited in its duties, essentially limited to guaranteeing our rights, maintaining a defense of the nation and being accountable to the wishes of the people. His strongest argument is to assert that rights are given by God, rather than granted by the state, and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." This is a pretty clear statement in our nation's founding document, and especially when coupled with basic Enlightenment concepts such as governments deriving power from the people, Jefferson effectively refutes any counterarguments. It also states that if the state were to overstep these limits, Americans would cease to be free. Obviously, a confederation of small republics is the most likely to protect individual freedom: for one thing, politicians are held directly accountable, since elections can be highly variable. more easily by small groups of people and are more likely to have personal knowledge of their topics. A confederation is also explicitly limited in scope: if the national government cannot impose laws on citizens without the consent of the smaller state government, it is effectively rendered powerless and capable only of making suggestions, rather than impositions. permanently protect individual freedoms. While it may be successful, even for many years, distance and lack of accountability make it impossible to preserve such freedoms. In theory, today's strong federal government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, but if that were true we would have no concept of a party, nor would we see unpopular candidates like Clinton thrust into various offices. A federal government is a recipe for oligarchy at best, and Soviet-style tyranny at worst: theirs is an interesting historical example, as individual liberties were relatively protected until the Soviet councils were subservient to the government central. In America, we have some level of protection through the Constitution, but even that is rapidly breaking down due to people's inability to enforce it, let alone.