Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them. Others might claim that a democracy isn’t necessarily the better option because there could be a lot hidden between the lines that people vote for without a second through. Both can be abused, and both can be
In the spirit of selfish self interest, the majority in a state will vote on implementing laws that favor the majority population without considering how it will affect the minority population. Someone has to step in and protect the minority’s interests and check any sort of discrimination directed to them. In this case the only people with the legal power to do so are the legislators and the government, even if it means facing majority outcry in the process. Oversimplifying an important public policy into a multiple choice decision, as earlier stated, might not result in the implementation of public laws. When voting in referendums, it is doubtful that most of the people voting have a complete idea on the decision they are making.
You probably will not answer all these questions, and the paper should not be a string of answers. You will formulate a thesis that responds to one or two or even several of these questions. Your thesis will need to be an argument that can stand alone. " Weakness is the mother of justice " , I actually didn't think about this , till I read it here and I think I agree with it . Some people are just because they don't have enough power to change how people act or change anything around them .
Despite the United States of America’s right to vote, a handful disagree that this freedom is properly applied. Henry David Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government”, states, that the American government does provide avenues for change for dissenters, but these are often too slow and unreliable. Voting, for instance, is not as effective as Americans like to think. Thoreau affirms, “The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail.
Things would run better with no competition for office. The program would have problems. The people of the state might not agree with the program. Philosophers may refuse to take up office because the life of a philosopher would be better than that of a ruler. It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it.
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
This essay will be in an affirmative position in regard to Albert Einstein’s quote “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. This quote means what’s the point in making a law when you can’t make sure that it’s enforced and upheld. Also it is saying that if the law isn’t respected. One of the reasons laws are put in place are to maintain a civil society. Therefore if laws are not respected we will lose a civil society and everything will turn to chaos.
10 Large Republic: Best Control of Effects of Faction * Measures are too often decided by the majority rather than rules of justice and the rights of the minority party * Faction= a group of citizens united and actuated by a common passion adverse to the right of other citizens Faction Cure: (2 methods) -remove causes -control effects * 2 methods to remove causes: -destroy liberty -equalize passion * 1st remedy: destroy liberty -worse than the disease -without liberty---faction dies -cannot abolish liberty because it is essential to political life * 2nd remedy: Equalize Passions -impossible to equalize passions, opinions, and
Most people really do not know the whole Constitution and it’s entirely but if they did there would be many things they would think is constitional and do not need to be changed. Madison believed to cure the problem remove the cause or control it. We have been using this all this time so obviously it is under control. Now if we decide to make a new one it is not going to make many people happy. It’s possible it will cause many problems and possibly another recession.