I don't believe that the colonists would have been able to work out an agreement with the king. Many of the issues between the king and the colonists are related to taxation and treatment, and it seems that both sides would have their own reasons for refusing to cooperate. From the king's perspective, it would seem that the actions of the government were justified. The fact was that the colonies were being protected by Britain, and as such, they were under the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and king. Because of that, the British Government would probably feel that it had every right to pass and enforce the laws that it created. From the colonists' perspective, it would seem that the government's actions are unjustified. The colonists felt that the government wasn't seeing things from their point of view. The colonists were still citizens of Great Britain, and as such, they felt that the government should not have been randomly passing laws without representation from the colonial people. Because of these two opposing viewpoints, I don't see how they would have been able to come to a agreement.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Homework #7
There is no way for a direct democracy to work in the United States. The United States is one of the most populated countries in the world. In a direct democracy, every citizen is literally part of the the government. With so many people giving so many different opinions, there would be no way to efficiently run the government. A direct democracy would really only cause more chaos. I feel that a representative government is working moderately well for this country because it allows important matters to be solved more quickly and efficiently (in most cases). I don't think we can really make a perfect government because, just like how people have flaws, there will always be some problems that can't be solved.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Current Events #1
Topic: The U.S. Economy
Article Title: The Era of Expert Failure
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/15/the_era_of_expert_failure_107170.html
Summary: The main point of the article is that the government is relying too much on individual experts to try to fix the economy. It states that there is no way for specific individuals to predict exactly how to fix the economy because it is far too complex for specific individuals to fix. It goes on to say that government officials tend to hire experts that promise results, but don't follow through with their promises. It also states the assumptions of these "experts" are prone to failure, which causes more problems because mistakes made by government experts affect many people and are difficult to fix. The article says that the biggest problem is that the power to change is concentrated in individuals, while the knowledge needed is widespread and divided. The author says that giving power to specific individuals hired by the government isn't the answer. Instead, the article states that experts not being sponsored by the government, such as experts in business and nonprofit institutions, should be searching for solutions.
Reaction: I don't think that it is a bad thing to be consulting with experts. I think that part of the problem is that, as the article said, part of the problem is that the government is relying too much on specific experts to fix the problems of a complex economy. The article states that private-sector experts should be working towards a solution, but I don't think that is enough. As the article said, the knowledge needed is spread out and divided. Because of that, I think that we should "widen the net" to include others that might have some needed insight, such as university students.
World Impact: This event can impact the rest of the world because the U.S. economy is intertwined with the economies of other countries as well. The U.S. is a major economic power in the world. Billions of dollars are traded everyday throughout the world. The decisions of these experts being hired by the government will ultimately affect the rest of the world in the long run. As such, if something major were to upset to the economy (like a depression for example), the rest of the world would be hurt as well.
Article Title: The Era of Expert Failure
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/15/the_era_of_expert_failure_107170.html
Summary: The main point of the article is that the government is relying too much on individual experts to try to fix the economy. It states that there is no way for specific individuals to predict exactly how to fix the economy because it is far too complex for specific individuals to fix. It goes on to say that government officials tend to hire experts that promise results, but don't follow through with their promises. It also states the assumptions of these "experts" are prone to failure, which causes more problems because mistakes made by government experts affect many people and are difficult to fix. The article says that the biggest problem is that the power to change is concentrated in individuals, while the knowledge needed is widespread and divided. The author says that giving power to specific individuals hired by the government isn't the answer. Instead, the article states that experts not being sponsored by the government, such as experts in business and nonprofit institutions, should be searching for solutions.
Reaction: I don't think that it is a bad thing to be consulting with experts. I think that part of the problem is that, as the article said, part of the problem is that the government is relying too much on specific experts to fix the problems of a complex economy. The article states that private-sector experts should be working towards a solution, but I don't think that is enough. As the article said, the knowledge needed is spread out and divided. Because of that, I think that we should "widen the net" to include others that might have some needed insight, such as university students.
World Impact: This event can impact the rest of the world because the U.S. economy is intertwined with the economies of other countries as well. The U.S. is a major economic power in the world. Billions of dollars are traded everyday throughout the world. The decisions of these experts being hired by the government will ultimately affect the rest of the world in the long run. As such, if something major were to upset to the economy (like a depression for example), the rest of the world would be hurt as well.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Homework #6
John Locke believed that that all people are born good, with natural rights that can't be taken away from you. He thought that a government could only exist with the consent of the people being governed, and believed in the principle of separation of powers in a government. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that people are naturally evil. He thought that only a government that had a ruler with absolute power could maintain control. I personally believe that John Locke's principles apply the concept of social contract more effectively than Thomas Hobbes's principles. Thomas Hobbes believes that people should give the government absolute power, but if you focus all of the power in one person, then there is really nothing stopping that person from abusing their power. John Locke's belief that the power should be split into separate parts chosen by the people helps to avoid that problem.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Homework #5
Questions: 1. Why do people obey laws?
2. Do you trust the government?
3. What would you change?
2. Do you trust the government?
3. What would you change?
People generally obey laws to help maintain order in their society. Our laws are meant to ensure the safety of the people by providing set regulations to limit unruliness. At the same time, they are meant to protect the rights of the people to ensure that they aren't taken advantage of by the government. Laws also allow for justice to be served to those that commit crimes or try to abuse the law.
For the most part, I feel that we should not completely depend on our government. The politicians in the highest offices of the government have always been at odds with each other- now more than ever. Because of that, these politicians are constantly clashing over how to lead the country, which usually ends in a deadlock between them, and prevents them from making any real progress in the government. If I could change the government, the main thing I would change is the Supreme Court. I believe that We shouldn't have Supreme Court justices keep their positions for life. Our society changes over time, and we need justices that reflect that change, instead of ones that have grown up in a different time, with different situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)