Is New Labour either?
Is New Labour
Is Anarchism merely liberal individualism taken to its logical extreme?
Is Anarchism merely liberal individualism taken to its logical extreme? The anarchist ideology is based on the central belief that political authority in all its forms is evil as well as unnecessary. However there are two forms of anarchism, Collectivist and Individualist, which base there ideologies on two very different traditions, Liberalism and Socialism. As there are two forms of anarchism it would be wrong to argue that anarchism is simply liberal individualism taken to its extreme, especially as the philosophical roots of collectivist anarchism lie in socialism rather than liberalism, thus clearly Anarchism is a more complicated ideology than simply being liberal individualism at its extreme. However Individualist Anarchism could be said reach its conclusions by pushing liberal individualism to its logical extreme. The basis of Individualist Anarchism lies in the central Liberal idea that the individual is supreme above the collective, the belief in the sovereign of the individual. This leads to a belief in the central importance of individual freedom, most definitely a central theme of individualist anarchism. William Godwin's anarchism amounts to a form of extreme classical liberalism and he developed a form of liberal rationalism that amounted to an argument for human perfectibility based on education and social conditioning, reflecting closely the arguments
SHOULD BRITAIN ADOPT A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION?
SHOULD BRITAIN ADOPT A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION? Currently Britain's constitution is an unwritten one. This doesn't mean that it is literally unwritten but that it is set down in many different documents. Additionally there is no set bill of rights as there is in The United States of America. The constitution of the U.S.A. is written and codified. In America a bill of citizen's rights was set down in the mid 1770's and is entrenched in the constitution. In order to change the bill of rights a two thirds majority is required in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. A consequence of this is that it is very hard to change the U.S. constitution. It is, in fact, so difficult that since its creation, it has been changed only twenty six times. Ten of these changes were in the first five years of its existence. A constitution can be described as "a set of rights, powers and procedures that regulate relations between public authorities and individual citizens." Put simply, a constitution governs political behaviour. Andrew Heywood describes the constitution as "a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government, regulate the relationships between them and define the relationship between the state and the individual." Heywood also suggested four ways of classifying a constitution; by form, is it written
Should Britain join the Euro?
GCSE ENGLISH PERSUASIVE WRITING: SHOULD BRITAIN JOIN THE EURO? The decision that faces the government about whether or not the United Kingdom should join the European single currency, the euro, is one of the most important economic decision the government has had to make in sixty years. In 1944 Britain joined a system of fixed exchange rates to ensure that after the war the currency was stable. This system was called the Bretton Woods system and it lasted until the early 1970's. Under the Breton Woods system Britain still retained the pound. If we choose to join the euro, the difference will be that the change will be permanent and the pound sterling will cease to exist altogether. There are a number of arguments to be put across for and against the United Kingdom joining. A lot of these arguments are political, instead of economic. Indeed it is a totally separate argument as to whether the decision to join should be taken on political or economic grounds. Tony Blair's Labour government has chosen to take the decision entirely on economic considerations. HM Treasury has just finished a thorough assessment of these five tests and Gordon Brown has concluded that the economic case for joining the single currency is not strong enough at the moment for the Government to recommend joining. I am in favour of joining the euro for many reasons. To start with the single
Should Britain Join The Euro?
Should Britain Join The Euro? On the first of January 2002, several European countries joined the Euro, a single form of currency, which replaced these countries' own national currency, meaning that all countries that are a member of 'Euroland' accept the Euro as their currency. Among these countries were Ireland, France, Germany, and Italy. As yet, Britain has opted not to join the Euro. Many argue that Britain should join the Euro, for both political and economic reasons. Economically, Britain is separated from the rest of the European countries who have adopted this currency, along with Sweden and Denmark who also opted to stay out of the Euro. This means that British businesses cannot share the benefits of being part of the Euro with the rest of Europe, as they are separated from the main part of the market by the variable exchange rate. British companies who export to, import from and invest in the rest of Europe will be less likely to do so in future because of uncertainty about profits because of changes in the currency and the value of the pound. The result will be British businesses retaining a more domestic approach to future investments, staying at home rather than investing abroad for fear of loss in profit. Equally, European companies will be reluctant to do business in Britain. The government's decision to opt out of the Euro
Analyse the claim that nowadays 'the president's cabinet performs no useful functions'.
Analyse the claim that nowadays 'the president's cabinet performs no useful functions'. Many people's first impressions of the US cabinet can be deceiving, as it can put forward the idea that they bring both the administration and the bureaucracy together. A cabinet rank department's role is to be responsible for areas of policy like, among many others, Defense, Education and Transport. Each of these departments is headed by a secretary who represents it in cabinet. The president appoints these heads of departments, but these must be ratified by the senate. The president's cabinet are mainly responsible for providing the president with advice and carrying out his decisions. The cabinet has a membership of just over twenty, and includes such people as the heads of executive departments, e.g. Donald Rumsfield who is the Secretary of Defense and Rod Paige the Secretary of Education. It can also include figures like the UN Ambassador and the Chief of Staff. President's, upon election, usually affirm that the cabinet assembled would become an important stage in all decision making, however, this rarely happens. Some presidents have strived for a cabinet that would work on the foundation of collective decision making. Ultimately, the cabinet can only be as strong as the president allows it to become, this was iterated by president Abraham Lincoln when at the end of a cabinet
Arab-Israeli conflict
Calday Grange Grammar School History Department Arab-Israeli Coursework Exercise 2005 Entry Alex Norton 10BX .) Why are both Arabs ad Jews willing to take such extreme measures as those described in the sources to further their causes? The Arabs and the Israeli's both are resorting to this violence because of security. Security is the underlying point. If the Arabs do not feel secure or the Israeli's do not feel secure then peace will not be able to happen. The extremists, such as the Hamas group are resorting to this violence to exact revenge. The World News article called it, "A cycle of killing." When an Arab throws a stone, the Israeli's throw a bomb and then the Arab's throw two bombs and the cycle continues. The dispute over land is another factor stimulating the violence. Since 1967, the Israeli's have occupied Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights and Sinai. Since 1967, the Arabs have been trying to get the mentioned territories back. As neither the Arab's or the Israeli's want to compromise, to them violence seems to be the only option. Therefore, when the use violence, to them it seems as though it is getting them somewhere. Refugee camps also have a direct connection with violence. The problem that comes is when a terrorist group attacks a refugee camp. This then makes people in the camp angry and they want revenge. Therefore, the refugee camp becomes
Arab Israeli Conflict
Arab Israeli Conflict There has been a significant Palestinian refugee problem for the last 50 years. Do these sources allow you to come to a firm conclusion about who or what is responsible for this War? The Arabs said it was their right to live in and lead Palestine because simply they had been living there for about 1300 years. Because of the holocaust (the Germans blamed the Jews for losing the war so the Jews were getting killed) and the pogroms (where the Russians blamed the Jews for the assassination of Tsar Alemandre, so the treated the Jews as slaves) more and more Jews were coming into Palestine. The Palestinians got mad so they asked the British to step in; they stopped unloading Jews to get on the land. The British promised land to both the Arabs and the Jews and when the British helped the Arabs the Jews got jealous so they decided to bomb Britain, Britain then got scared and decided to hand the problem over to the UN. In 1948 the UN decided to split the land 50/50 but the Jews got greedy and decided to take all the land by doing this they set up the operation Dallet This was when the Jews attacked a peaceful village in Palestine called Deir Yassin and killed a lot of the Arabs in the massacre, they did this to get the Arabs scared and get them out of the land which they did in their thousands. The Jews felt it was their land because God promised them it
Arab israeli Conflict
The Arab Israeli conflict is a Modern phenomenon which began around the turn of the 20th century. Although both sides have different religions, the Israelis being mainly Jewish and the Arabs containing Muslims, Christians and Druze, it is fundamentally a fight over land. Land has always been a fundamental issue between the Zionists and the Palestinian-Arabs. The Jewish claim to the land goes all the way back to biblical times when God promised Israel to "Abraham and he's seed forever". This promise has stayed with the Jews, prompting many of them to think that Palestine is meant to be there homeland. However the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans in 135AD and afterwards spread out in Europe, this is more commonly known as Diaspora. While in Europe they experienced many anti-Semitic attacks such as the Pogroms in Russia it was this that motivated Theodore Hertzle to unite Jews in the Zionist movement. This was to bring Jews together into a homeland. The Arabs also have a valid claim to the land. After the Roman Empire fell many Arabs drew together and conquered Palestine in the 7th century. These Arabs became know as the Palestinian Arabs. They lived there for hundreds of years until the Turks took over the area and the Arabs came under Turkish rule in the 16th century, this lasted until 1914 and it was this that made Arabs dream of an independent Arab state.
Arab Israeli conflict.
Arab Israeli conflict By Sara Booker On October 3rd 2000, the observer reported that "violence raged across Gaza, the west Bank and Israel itself yesterday, unchecked by international appeals for calm, and fuelled by a steadily rising death toll, which last night had reached at least 47 in 5 days. Seven years after the Oslo accords, the already dying peace negotiations appeared to be over". The situation has not improved since October 2000 and violence continues to the present day. Source A is a reliable source. It has been written from a Palestinian point of view, about how Palestinians feel about the conditions they have been forced to live in. It tells you that the Palestinians are angry with the appalling economic conditions they have been made to live, nothing has happened to make the conditions better, even though people have talked about making it better. They are feed up with the slow pace the peace process is taking. The source is saying the problems lie deeper than the small things which set off the intifada, it's a built up provocation of years of anger which is set off with something small. It explains the long-term factors effecting the Palestinians such as the backwardness to the economic conditions. Millions of people are still living in the refugee camps, some know no different because they have never lived anywhere else. Source B has been written in a
