The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market. The regulation imposed creates factions limiting the ease of market entry. The environment that our American business calls home must remain competitive assuring quality goods to consumers while encouraging technological advancements. The path our federal government is currently on is a path of non-democratic regulation that is a threat to the growth and prosperity of our country. It is simply a matter of the true meaning of the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause that must be addressed.
Terrorism- a nationalist response to the effects of globalization Globalization of economy politics and social issues has made people and groups more insecure and uncertain. One main consecuence of that insecurity is to look for a personal identity and to search for a cultural identity. Globalization is the phenomenon that explains growth to a global or world wide scale(wordnetweb.priceton.edu). Nationalism is the loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national conciousness (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism). 1.
Giddens argues that fundamentalism is a reaction to globalisation. He sees society as having moved to a “late modern” phase, in which globalisation has undermined traditional norms regarding the nuclear family, gender and sexuality. People are now faced with choice, uncertainty and risk and in this environment, fundamentalism flourishes as it promises certainty with its rigid, dogmatic beliefs. Giddens argues that globalisation increases fundamentalism by providing an alternative to the risk society of late modernity. Fundamentalists may reject some aspects of modernity, they embrace others in order to spread their beliefs, for example, through the Internet, email and electronic church, suggesting that fundamentalism does not represent a total rejection of globalisation and modernity.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.
The articles, “30 Little Turtles”, by Thomas L. Friedman, “New Threat to Skilled U.S. Workers”, by Froma Harrop, and "Labor Day Blues", by Mike lane, give three radically different views on the subject of the outsourcing of American jobs as a result of globalization. The three authors have . It’s tempting to assume that the truth must be somewhere in the middle; that a balanced analysis of the two views would regard each as being an extreme, thus giving credence to both as legitimate. However, in answering the question “What should be our attitude about outsourcing?”, I don’t think that we should balance truth against fantasy. Friedman sets out in his essay to convince us that the outsourcing of call center jobs is a love-and-light experience for Indian workers.
It will be argued that this contrast in the two theories is the most important. The second contrast shown in this essay will be the difference in opinion held regarding the role the state ought to play in creating economic and social development. Thirdly, modernisation theory uses the industrial revolution in England as its blueprint for development. Dependency theory offers no suggestion or actual plan for good development. Finally this essay will show the
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 9 (1) EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT: Democracy or Delusion? by Howard A. Doughty That the term ‘empowerment’ is so widely used today in ‘progressive’ management circles suggests not just manipulative intent but an awareness that even in periods of deep recession the boundaries of workplace control continue to be challenged by workers striving to attain a measure of power, security, and dignity. - James W. Rinehart1 Lord Bertrand Russell wrote somewhere that work is of two kinds: altering the position of matter at or near the surface of the earth, and telling others to do so. The first, he said, is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and well paid. A more succinct statement of power relations in the workplace would be hard to find.2 This essay is a reflection on one of the more interesting concepts in the contemporary management of human resources-employee empowerment.
This refers to Globalisation of sovereignty, which is the willingness of nation states to give up certain aspects of their sovereignty to international organizations. It is hard to have a discussion about sovereignty without mentioning Max Weber, because of his famous quote ‘a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’ in his essay Politics and Vocation. This is the fundamental definition of a sovereign nation state. However this is not a sufficiently accurate definition of a modern nation state, McGrew and Held define a modern nation state as follows; (1) the state should have ‘fixed’ borders. (2) ‘claim to hold a monopoly on force’.
Can foreign policy be both “ethical” and Realist? “What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”1 Foreign policy can be said to be the discourse of international politics – the means by which states present themselves, forge inter-state relationships and attempt to advance their own interests. However even a cursory examination of the topic yields several differing views on it, falling under the umbrella of several theories – Liberal Internationalism, Realism and Marxism, to name a few. Examining the Realist view in particular, raises the question of whether foreign policy is conducted purely for national self-interest, or whether it can have elements of morality and ethics factor into the justifications and motivations involved. Realism is the evolution of a long tradition of political thought, able to be traced as far back as Thucydides and his Melian dialogue; the core of Machiavelli’s famous treatise The Prince; keenly visible in the inter-war period of the 20th Century, and now seemingly ingrained in political thought as the “realistic” approach to politics, focused around the pursuit of power – “Man's control over the minds and actions of other men.”2 In the anarchic international system, with politically identical (that is, sovereign) states all jostling for position, the Realist view is one of self-help and a struggle for survival.
Sovereignty in Global Criminology In the age of globalization and the emergence of new technologies, where crimes have become border-less and state actions have become far-reaching, global awareness of state-sponsored atrocities and humanitarian issues are said to have taken centre stage. It is then logical to expect sovereignty, the ability of a state to behave with immunity and act with absolute supremacy over internal affairs, to continuously be discarded little by little , in the name of human dignity and rights, However its safe to say that sovereignty and national jurisdiction lives on and continues to impede the development of global criminology and the human rights discourse. Even though principles of sovereignty or political legitimacy in theory, are only affirmed or reclaimed by the state through taking on specific right and obligations such as the protection of human rights and its citizens, these principles can nevertheless, in practice survive on their own. State crimes, which involve civil, political or gross human rights violations and corresponding moral and legal responsibilities are still not effectively conceptualised and addressed. They continue to be sent to the back burner, while political agendas brew.