Jefferson's main arguments for independence consisted mainly of the Crown's imposition of taxes and trade restrictions on the colonies, but he was very clear that the problem was not the seriousness of the offense, but much more that the Crown had overstepped the bounds of mutual respect and consent , that is to say “No taxation without representation”. The colonists, ultimately, primarily took issue with the king's apparent lack of respect for them, forcing all trade to go through Britain and requiring them to provide housing for soldiers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe Declaration of Independence should not be considered an actual declaration of war, even though it comes very close to one. This is essentially a semantic position: I believe a declaration of war must be explicit, or at the very least threaten violence, which the Declaration does not do. For example, India, Costa Rica, and arguably South Africa have all issued declarations of independence in one form or another and have never fought a war or even experienced widespread violence during their period of independence. Therefore, we must conclude that a declaration of independence and a declaration of war are necessarily distinct and neither exclusive nor mutually exclusive. Jefferson defines the role of government as being very limited in its duties, content primarily with securing our rights, maintaining the defense of the nation, and responding to the wishes of the people. He makes his strongest argument by asserting 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 coupled with foundational Enlightenment concepts such as governments deriving power from the people, Jefferson effectively refutes any counterargument. He further asserts that if the state overstepped these limits, Americans would cease to be free. Obviously, a confederation of small republics is most likely to protect individual freedom - on the one hand, politicians are held directly accountable, because elections can be largely influenced. more easily by small groups of people and they are more likely to know their subjects personally. A confederation is also explicitly limited in scope: if the national government cannot impose laws on citizens without the consent of the smaller state's government, it is effectively rendered powerless and only capable of making suggestions, rather than impositions. A larger republic is inherently incapable of lastingly protecting individual freedoms. While this may be successful, even for many years, distance and lack of accountability make it impossible to preserve these freedoms. In theory, today's strong federal government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, but if this were true, we would have no concept of party, nor would we see unpopular candidates like Clinton being pushed into office. various positions. A federal government is at best a recipe for oligarchy, and at worst for Soviet-style tyranny – their historical example is interesting, as individual liberties were relatively protected until Soviet councils were subjugated to government.