Of Need and Greed

Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been a struggle for power, from our primitive ancestors to our present day, supposed, enlightened times. There have been a variety of systems that spawned and died in the political world. It can be assumed that the fruition of democracy emerged after the desire to create a system in which it was equal, sustainable, and transparent and where human rights was recognized. Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, had believed creating a democratic society in which he considered was perfect had to have (Dahl, 2000): effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, an open agenda setting and inclusion (p.37-38) . In the present day, there are many countries that consider themselves

Set up against the rampant industrialization of the 18th century, Charles Dickens classic novella “A Christmas Carol” endorses the notion that all people have a responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of every member of society. By taking his seemingly irredeemable protagonist Ebenezer Scrooge on an other worldly journey. Dickens intends to convey to the complacent classes of the age, the necessity of various traits that are essential in life, such as the responsibility for those whom are less fortunate and other vital traits such as charity, generosity and simply caring for others. Dickens warns the reader of the consequences that will follow if these lessons are not taken into consideration.

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

The future of Earth and democracy is in a crucial moment. There is significant backlash across the globe against uncontrolled capitalism and the consequences it has had over the last century. With this comes the development of the World Wide Web, which has brought change in the form of the Information Age. With this comes amazing new technology that has allowed movements to work across the globe better than before. With this comes the question of how transnational movements are going to succeed. The Socialist movement achieved much in early 1900s as did the Civil Rights movement. But how transnational movements succeed now is a difficult question. The threat of violence from state and non-state actors hangs over the heads of those in much of

The authors also argue that the greatness of the government driven by democracy is the right to

In conditions when both technologies and our needs require more and more energy, it is impossible to count only on natural resources and to think that their reserves are unlimited. This is not true. We have learned to receive electricity from irreplaceable resources – oil, gas, also from replenished - water, wind, sun. But the energy of the sun or wind is not enough for today’s rythm of our civilization. And hydroelectric and thermal power plants are not as clean and economical for the modern rhythm

In the United States, a sustainable society is desired by virtually every citizen, especially the ones informed of the consequences caused by our wanton use of fossil fuels and the detrimental methods used to extract them from the earth. Nevertheless, despite almost universal acceptance of the need to turn away from nonrenewable and polluting energy sources, there are forces preventing that switch. One of those forces is the megalith that is our current energy paradigm, or the existing energy production/consumption infrastructure that we’ve built which runs largely on nonrenewable resources. Yet, as daunting as a transition to a world run on renewable energies like solar, an energy source with significant growth-potential, may seem from a technological and logistical standpoint, it is eminently feasible. The most problematic hurdle the United States faces is, in truth, political stagnation. While intense lobbying efforts from the fossil fuel industry and public utilities don’t help, the gridlock caused by the inherent framework of the U.S. political system is principally to blame for governmental malaise when it comes to investing in green technology. However, with increasing concerns over environmental degradation and impending climate change, progress has been made. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDE) has appointed 25 cities across the country to be part of its “Solar America City” initiative, including Philadelphia. Philadelphia, which aims to become the leading city in

Democracy is, according to the online Cambridge dictionary, ‘a system of government based on the belief in freedom and equality between people, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves’. It is the policy that most western countries strive to achieve. It is now the pinnacle of government, that to achieve a wholly democratic nation is something worth celebrating. It is displayed as a universal good but it’s not everything that it has become known to be. I should clarify that I still think that I prefer it to nearly all other forms of government but nevertheless I still think that it is not what we have been led to believe it is. In this essay I will be outlining the key problems that could

For convenience the review is organized around the following domains: ecosystem, cultural system, change, and research trends and needs. An ecosystem is composed of abiotic and biotic components which interact through the flow of energy, matter, and information, and all of this varies in space and time. (67)

Democracy as a form of government is usually exposed to different understanding, interpretations and even definitions. For some it is the solution and for others it is a problem. It is a term that is a fundamentally disputed concept—a concept that is at the heart of endless debates that although are not settled by any kind of argument, are nevertheless continued by all sorts of scholarly evidence. Democracy is a disputed concept because nearly everyone values the “ideal”, yet there are different legitimate but also incompatible criteria for judging whether the ideal is actually one to strive towards. In a perfect world, we as comparative thinkers would use concepts that reflect the uniqueness of each country and yet are simple enough to be relevant and measurable in every country. In reality and practice, the difficulty of gathering political information usually prevents scholars from achieving these goals so we tend to settle on concepts that focus on characteristics of democracy like Robert Dahl in his book, On Democracy, and Sheldon Wolin in his articles “Fugitive Democracy” and “Norm and Form”. These scholars lead us to question why

Since the Cold War era, the spread of democracy and its implications have been highly debated across the world. As more states adopt this method of government, the question of how to interact with opposing states has taken the spotlight in the context of international relations. Some scholars, like Robert Kaplan, believe that democratic elections do not help with social and economic stability in developing countries. Others, particularly supporters of the United States idea of democracy such as Sean Jones, believe that democracy benefits the inhabitants of newly democratizing states, promotes peace in the international system, and advances U.S. interests. This paper will explore the support and opposition of the claim that spreading

James Cairns and Alan Sears use two key frameworks as contrasting lenses on the current state of democratic theory and practice. The use of these frameworks is designed to help readers become more cognizant of where they stand on certain questions regarding democracy, as well as reflecting on why they might hold these views. In addition, their frames are used to help reflect upon the fact what counts as a democracy is defined otherwise, depending upon the perspective from which you approach the question.

Considers democracy primarily as a process of expressing one’s preferences and demands, and registering them in a vote (Young 1995, p. 60). Moreover, decisions are formed based on what will serve the greatest number of people. Similarly, interest groups or individuals may align themselves to the more popular decisions but ideally will serve their own interest. This approach results in citizens never having to think of or understand another’s values.

Democracy was not the global result of World War I. The preceding argument is one many would make based on the fact that World War II occurred, demonstrating that democracy on a global stage could not have been possible. Otherwise, World War II would not have taken place. However, as one examines Woodrow Wilson’s “14 points” speech and assesses the world vision that Wilson put into his talking points, one begins to take a different approach, where the essential wheels were in motion following World War I, but began to sputter as the Axis powers gained momentum in the Second World War. Stability throughout Europe, with the hope of bringing democracy to the global environment was Wilson’s plan, where his mindset was to establish what had already been evident throughout the United States; his vision saw the world sharing this view. Democracy and self-determination were put into place in the United States and globally following the First World War as the majority continued to seek these values despite the barriers presented.

As a result globalisation has also undone some important cultural and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. However, it is imperative to note that the effect of globalisation on different nation states will not be the same, because states differ domestically, historically, politically and socio-culturally. Therefore, states will make different policy choices in response to the same global phenomena (Held 1989, 237).