This is an age old legal dilemma and is what is effectively meant by ‘balancing conflicting interests.’ In the nineteenth century, von Jhering recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there were many competing interests, not all being economic; as he believed utilitarianism views he was concerned with social aims and results over individuals. His view was that legal developments were driven by the constant tussle between individuals and groups within society to have their interests portrayed and supported by the law. As a result the law acts to determine the true balance between different interests by examining the value of each. Roscoe Pound identified 2 categories of interests in the law. Firstly is social interest, such as health and safety and public order, whilst individual interests include privacy and domestic relations.
Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic. His view was that legal developments were driven by the constant tussle between individuals and groups within society to have their interests portrayed and supported by the law. He expressed that law could be used in self-interest by individuals and groups in order to achieve advances in their own purposes. As a result, the law acts to determine the true balance between different interests by examining the value of each. The American legal scholar, Roscoe Pound, was influenced by Jhering.
Pressure groups activity in the UK presents a major threat to democracy. Evaluate the arguments in favour of this view (25 marks) Pressure groups aim to influence government policy without seeking election itself. The actions of pressure groups challenge and influence democracy as well as being beneficial to democracy in the UK as pressure groups challenge policies and put pressure on the government to change them. On the other hand pressure groups only represent a minority of people’s views and aren’t considered a major threat to democracy. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbolm suggest a pluralist view of democracy suggesting that pressure groups are beneficial to democracy.
Using materials from item 2B and elsewhere, assess sociological views of the impact of government policies and laws on family life. Social policies are laws and actions taken on my other governing bodies, such as welfare systems or schools, which gives societies its rules and structure. It is true that these social policies must have an impact on aspects of life including family life for members of that society however sociologists often disagree on what this impact is. Therefore by looking at a range of different sociological views we can get a picture of how social policies and their effect on society are perceived differently and which opinions hold most relevance to family life today. As we can see in item 2B a feminist sociological thinker believes that ‘social policies assume the ideal family is the patriarchal nuclear family’ and this sort of family is favoured by government policies and laws.
Social justice ... is neither the exclusive terrain of social welfare nor of crime control. Indeed, the boundaries between these two domains tend to be mobile and porous’ (Book 1, Social Justice: Welfare, Crime and Society, p. 168). Explain and illustrate this with reference to examples drawn from at least two chapters from Book 1. Word limit: Between 1400 and 1600. It has been long debated that the issues of social justice such as inequality, poverty and social exclusion are divided between social welfare and crime control territories.
This means that if a government doesn’t change to help society, then the poor will take action. Peel also believed that where change is needed, then government should change. Conservatives believe that institutions and customs such as the monarchy which have survived the test of history should be preserved. However, the glorious revolution was seen as reconnecting with ancient liberties because it asserted ancient rights. Conservatives believe that humans are imperfect and that society is too complicated for them to understand and make their own decisions.
Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties.
As James Madison stated, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[viii] They understood that the unruly masses responsible for the Boston Tea Party could spark a revolution[ix], however the frenzied approach would not serve well as a functional government. They understood that “democratic governing is not the same as democratic discourse”[x]. Boucher was correct, absolute democracy is not practical. This is why a representative democracy, where all voices are heard, but where decisions are made rationally, reflecting the views of the general public, is a logical solution for a functional government representing the will of the people. A representative democracy is a form of democracy whose foundation is built on common sense.
In sociological terms, however, individual career development is also a product of the constraints on and barriers to choices that individuals might prefer to make. Such constraints can occur because of limitations on individual choice that arise from political conditions or from economic circumstances. Sociological effects on choice also can be seen in family and cultural influences. Families with differing educational and socioeconomic backgrounds tend to reinforce different educational and occupational goals and belief systems related to career choice. Nations and cultural groups also differ in how particular types of education, work, or family roles are valued, and these perceptions tend to be internalized by group members and reflected in their choices.
The decisions that affect welfare reform such as health care, defense, environment and taxes - is not merely a conversation between politicians, the public and "special interests". It is also the product of the many foundations - the "think tanks" - dedicated to discovering what is best for all, or at least for some of us. What they bring to the process is not only honest research, but also heart-felt ideology and what is often a dedication to differing priorities and outcomes. I believe there is many important factors that are considered in political reform decision-making process that is not favorable, justified and quantified. Citizens of industrialized democratic nations like the United States, often hold there elected and appointed leaders