When, if ever, do citizens have an obligation to obey the law?
When if ever, do citizens have an obligation to obey the law? Theory is knowledge of our time. Doctrine and knowledge are no longer united as they were before the reformation of 16th Century Europe where a singular theory in the form of sacral kinship was accepted by most as an obligation to obey the law. However, development in rationality, education, and intelligence saw "The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy (and) ... progress toward a true respect for the individual" (Thoreau 1996:20-21). Individualism has meant that obligation to obey the law can no longer be grounded in singularity even though advantages are evident in the form of simplicity and lack of conflicts. States "reflect a complex and comprehensive intellectual world- an immense world of concepts and beliefs." (Steinberger 2004:13) meaning a pluralistic approach one that takes into consideration varying views amongst individuals provides a conceptual framework as to why we obey the laws. There also exist more self-centered motivations behind obedience, factors such as the avoidance of fines and punishment, consequent state and societal sanctions, and our innate moral conscience all deter us from committing 'illegal' acts. Indeed, there exist a multitude of other psychological, political and social motives, however it will not be possible to discuss these
Is anarchism merely liberal individualism taken to its logical extreme?
Is anarchism merely liberal individualism taken to its logical extreme? It can be argued that anarchism is merely liberal individualism taken to its extremes however it depends on the strand of Liberalism that is being considered. The distrust of the state and the importance of individual liberty is also shared by classical liberals such as J.S Mill. Liberals however give an account of freedom in terms of unlimited choice or the absence of constraints, whereas anarchists define freedom through an absolute value, being able to be rational and self willed and above all irreconcilable with any political authority. Whilst liberals safeguard individual freedom with laws and rights, the anarchist solution rests on a faith in the individual's good nature toward others, within the ideal society. Unlike liberals, anarchists cannot accept the state or constitutional limits on the abuse of power, since constitutions and rights are established by the very institutions anarchists oppose for being repressive. The basis of individualist anarchism can also be found in the liberal idea of the sovereign individual, and hence can be said to take the classical liberal ideas to it's extreme. The individualist anarchists believe the individual and the state are always in conflict, as the individual cannot be sovereign in a society ruled by oppressive law and government institutions. Liberals
Do anarchists demand the impossible?
Do anarchists demand the impossible? Anarchists are heavily criticised for their goals, which are simply dismissed as 'utopian.' Anarchists want to achieve a society where individuals freely co-operate, as equals. Government is not needed as it causes inequality and has a destructive influence on human nature. Anarchists also believe that there should be no private ownership of land or capital, as it causes humans to be greedy and selfish. Therefore three major evils are identified - government, the law and private property. Anarchists see the institution of authority as the root of all evil. Anarchism's fundamental goal, the abolition of state and the establishment of a society governed by morality alone, is dismissed as plainly unachievable because it contradicts the orthodox view of human nature, which says that human beings are selfish individuals who require authoritative government to maintain order. Anarchists hold an extremely optimistic view of the human capacity for sociable behaviour. Anarchists believe environmental factors determine human nature. They seldom assert that people are naturally good, but rather they have the capacity for solidarity and co-operation and are naturally gregarious in certain situations, i.e. situations without authoritative rule. Bakunin wrote that "at birth, not a single human being is either bad or good. 'Good'...can be
What is theory, and why is it important?
What is theory, and why is it important? Introduction To think theoretically one has to avoid treating the task as that of formulating an appropriate definition of theory1James N Rosenau When one thinks of the reason for theory, we only have to look to our past. As intuitive beings we have always had the urge to define events in our world. People in the past have explained different events and phenomena, by creating stories through assumptions which help people to understand the world they live in. In the case of this essay, we look at the complexities of international relations. International relations theories are a tool used by us to better understand the political events of our past and present in an attempt to better understand our future. Thus, theorists and various scholars have played a key role for nations and their policy makers when making decisive decisions. In this same way, during the progress of the 20th century three theories have contributed to create the shape of international relations: Realism, liberalism and a more modern form of radicalism, constructivism. Professor Stephen Waltz, defines the key theories that I will be looking at' Realism emphasises the enduring propensity for conflict between states; liberalism identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies and radical tradition describes how the entire system of state relations
What accounts for the resurgence of nationalism in recent decades? Discuss in relation to at least one contemporary case.
February, 2004 What accounts for the resurgence of nationalism in recent decades? Discuss in relation to at least one contemporary case. "The 'end of the era of nationalism' so long prophesied is not remotely in sight. Indeed, nation-ness is the most universally legitimate value of our time.'1 The last few decades have seen the world become increasingly interconnected and integrated, with most of humanity "bound to the wheel of automated technologies", leading to the observation that "our world has become a single place." This process of globalisation has been concurrent with the rise and proliferation of various social movements and forms of identity protests, from feminism to the environment, and civil rights to religious revival. Running parallel to the development of these movements has been a seeming resurgence of nationalism, which has proved difficult to explain. We must begin by first attempting to define what is meant by nationalism. A nation is best described as a community of people who occupy a contiguous territory or homeland, while sharing a common history and culture. It has been argued by Benedict Anderson that the nation is an imagined community, as although most members will never meet one another, they nevertheless feel they all belong to a common community. Nations are also seen as sovereign, as nationalism is the celebration of independence and
Globalization and Its Discontents
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS Joseph E. Stiglitz. "From the suites of the World Economic Forum in Davos to the streets of Seattle, there is a growing consensus that globalization must now be reshaped to reflect values broader than simply the freedom of capital." Globalization is a force which is presently being used only in the sense of "the freedom of capital"; something which is not all that free. This is discussed in Stilglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents, whereas globalization should be viewed as an instrument to facilitate the use of an untouched global free-market system. The examples in this book do support important theoretical arguments regarding political economy, but not as its author intends. In addition, global institutions should use upgrading and innovation globally to help with third world's development. However, in using what are thought to be helpful market-recovery institutions, such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, the hidden agendas of the United States and developed countries are crippling the growth of the under-developed countries. Thus, the attempt by developed countries to help third world countries is misguided, when it should be encouraging an untouched global free-market system and a culture of innovation. At the outset of Globalization and Its Discontents, Stilglitz notes that the original mission
Why did the ideal of liberal nationalism fail in 19th century Germany?
Why did the ideal of liberal nationalism fail in 19th century Germany? Historians have deduced that liberal nationalism failed in Germany during the 19th century because in 1914 Germany was a Reich dominated by the militaristic elite; everything that liberals objected to. To see whether or not the liberal nationalists achieved anything one must first asses their aims. The liberal nationalists wanted a constitution (based on a clear law structure) which was not dominated by the Prussians. Their form of nationalism came from below; it was representative of the people. They were also supporters of laissez faire, an economic principle which was based on a free market economy in which the government did not intervene. This economic principle included free trade between states and colonies in an attempt to make the middle classes prosper. The last liberal nationalist objective was that Germany should not be in a confederation. The liberals did make some impact on the nation as some of their principles were recognised. All citizens were included in the nation, not just Germans living in Germany; this would have removed some tension with minority discrimination. This cause was always a catalyst for the much needed political scrutiny of the autocratic regime by students and professors (seen in mass meeting such as the Carlsbad Decrees in 1819). Liberal nationalism shaped the
The Political, Social and Religious Effects of the Industrial Revolution
Political Effects Positive Negative Emergence of strong military European powers => increasing national pride in short-run Development of new forms of transport like steamships, creating new vehicles of war Surplus capacity of heavy industry often diverted into the military field to build up a powerful and technologically advanced force Scientific research boasted military capabilities, leading to breakthroughs in military technology European powers gained upper hand in military powers, in position to dominate weaker parties => gave Euro. Powers in boost to their military powers, increasing national pride & int. prestige Encouraged int. cooperation => foster cordial relations among European powers Crane Brinton: IR bound nations closer together by stimulating int. trade btw. Countries and lowering the barriers of distance through improved transport and communication Increased production, more commerce, closer int. ties as factors of production became more mobile, spread from Brit. To Continental Europe Eg. Emergency loan granted to England by Bank of France in 1825, only a decade after Waterloo Rivalry, tension, outbreak of WWI in long-run Greater desire among powers to build most updated weapons Technological advancements => more lethal weapons Eg. Maxim's machine gun New transport, steamship in 1820, created vehicles for war C.Brinton: fortified nationalism
Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism provides for an interesting insight into the origins of capitalism and its relationship with Protestantism in Europe.
Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism provides for an interesting insight into the origins of capitalism and its relationship with Protestantism in Europe. Weber observes that business leaders and personnel, as well as skilled labourers and owners of capital are overwhelmingly Protestant. He acknowledges that some of the causing factors may be embedded in historical facts including different upbringings and environments in Protestant groups compared to those that are Catholic. However, Weber realizes that Protestantism has a higher sense of economic rationalism and attempts to discover the roots of this ethic within the Protestant Reformation initiated in the 16th century - focusing on the Protestant sect of Calvinism. Simultaneously, Weber examines the origins of capitalism and the development of its spirit. That is, acquiring more and more money while avoiding pleasure. He also examines its role as a calling in society. Weber essential argues that the Reformation embedded the roots of the spirit, which gradually matured on its own. He aims to define the relationship between this working ethic and capitalistic spirit and how it develops to eventually trap society in an "iron cage." The individual is born into the capitalist system and is shaped according to its needs. Weber summarizes his argument by believing that the iron cage is inescapable.
Novels in America.
Novels in America ENG 364 Spring 2004 Midterm All feature characters we have read thus far have been shaped by, and have been seen moving through environments that were portrayed as oppressive. Each author conceived oppression in the three books in varying degrees in both its sources and manifestations. Capitalism in, and of itself, is exploitative by nature. Its main mantra is the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the rest. It would be no surprise then, that as a major theme in most of the books, that this type of economic perspective breeds not only competition but also contempt for the system. This contempt would be more noticeable in the general area of race but more obvious in the specific area of American culture. Manhattan Transfer's story and general layout could be attributed to its background history that was provided by John Dos Passos. In it, he describes the city of New York during a time of world crisis and predicament. The whole book capitalizes on the theme of chaos and disorder. There are more than a handful of characters milling about and weaving in and out of the story and it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the direction in which the author is going and to which timeline he is referring to at any given point in the book. However, it would be foolish to assume that there is no method to his madness. The insane amount of characters goes
